Connect with us
https://yoursportsnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/call-to-1.png

NIL

Client Alert: NCAA House Settlement Approved | Whiteford

Published

6 months ago

on


 

On Friday, June 6, 2025, US District Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division, finally approved the $2.8 billion settlement agreement arising from Case No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW In re: College Athlete NIL Litigation (“Settlement Agreement”), a class action lawsuit against the NCAA and the Power Five Conferences challenging their rules restricting payments to student-athletes, including payments related to student-athletes names, images, and likenesses (NIL) for commercial purposes. The Settlement Agreement will reshape college sports by allowing universities to pay student-athletes directly starting July 1, 2025, effectively ending the NCAA’s longstanding argument that student-athletes are amateurs and should, therefore, not be paid.

  1. Background
This class action began as three separate antitrust lawsuits, House v. NCAA (“House”), Hubbard v. NCAA (“Hubbard”), and Carter v. NCAA (“Carter”), each filed against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences challenging their rules prohibiting college athletes from receiving compensation.[1] The House case challenged the NCAA and the Power Five conferences’ rules barring student-athletes from receiving compensation for the use of their NIL, while Hubbard and Carter both challenged the NCAA and Power Five conferences’ rules prohibiting payments and certain education-related benefits for athletes’ services.[2] All three of these lawsuits were consolidated into In re College Athlete NIL Litigation alleging that these prohibitions violated antitrust law.[3]

This settlement comes on the heels of the landmark decision in In re Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation (“Alston”) in which the same United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division, struck down the NCAA’s rules that limited the amount of education-related compensation and benefits that could be paid by colleges to student-athletes; a decision that was later upheld by the Ninth Circuit and affirmed by the Supreme Court.[4]

  1. Settlement Terms

The terms of the settlement included a release of claims by the class members in exchange for, among other terms, payment of back damages by the NCAA and the Power Five conferences in the amount of $2.8 billion to those class members, revenue sharing by colleges directly with student-athletes, and certain rule changes in the NCAA and the Power Five conferences allowing for payment directly from the universities. More specifically, the terms include:

  1. Release of Claims
In an effort to limit the amount of antitrust legislation brought against the NCAA in this new era of NIL, the Settlement Agreement provides that all class members who did not opt out of the Settlement Agreement, by entering into the Settlement Agreement, agree to release all claims and actions that could be brought against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences related to NCAA or conference rules about money and benefits that could be provided to the student-athletes for a period of 10 years.[5] The class members to the approved Settlement Agreement include (i) all student-athletes competing in Division 1 athletics between June 15, 2020 and ten academic years following the date of the final approval, (ii) all student-athletes who received full scholarships and competed on a Division 1, Power Five conference, men’s college basketball team or FBS football team, and who were eligible between June 15, 2016 and September 15, 2024, (iii) all student-athletes who received full scholarships and competed on a Division 1, Power Five conference, women’s basketball team and who were eligible between June 15, 2016 through September 15, 2024, and (iv) all student-athletes who competed on a Division 1 athletic team and who were eligible between June 15, 2016 through September 15, 2024.[6]
  1. Change in Payment Rules

In exchange for the release of the claims by the class members, the NCAA and Power Five conferences agreed to change certain rules restricting payments made to college athletes, both from the institutions themselves, and from third parties. The rule changes include:

  1. Changing the NCAA Division 1 and Power Five conferences’ rules to allow payments to student-athletes, so long as they are consistent with the limitations of the Settlement Agreement.[7]
  2. Allowing Division 1 colleges and Division 1 student-athletes to enter into licensing and endorsement agreements for the use of that student athlete’s NIL, institutional brand promotion, or other rights, provided that the agreement is not for the right to use a student athlete’s NIL for a broadcast of college games.[8] This licensing or endorsement agreement may not extend for longer than the student-athletes eligibility to participate in NCAA sports.[9]
  3. Prohibiting the NCAA from having any rules prohibiting student-athletes from receiving payments from third parties for NIL, as long as the student-athletes adhere to the reporting requirements under the Settlement Agreement.[10]
  4. Requiring Division 1 student-athletes to report to their respective colleges, the NCAA and/or a third-party clearinghouse run by the accounting firm Deloitte any and all third-party NIL contracts or payments with a total value of six hundred dollars ($600) or more.[11] The clearinghouse will be responsible for assessing the fair market value of transaction by using data from past endorsement deals signed by college and professional athletes to determine if the payment should be considered “pay-for-play.”[12]
  5. Requiring each Power Five conference school, and all non-Power Five schools who choose to provide payments or benefits under this Agreement, to report each NIL contract or payment reported to the college and any agreement between the student-athlete and the college.[13]
  1. Back Damages
In addition to the rule changes, the NCAA agreed to pay back damages in the amount of $2.8 billion to the class members who were restricted from earning compensation off of their NIL dating back to 2016. This payment will be distributed in annual installments over the course of ten years.[14]
  1. Revenue Sharing by the Schools
The Settlement Agreement also allows, but does not require, Division 1 colleges to distribute additional payments or benefits to student-athletes above existing scholarships.[15] The additional payments amount to 22% (or $20.5 million projected in the first year) of the shared revenue received by each college each year earned through media rights, ticket sales, sponsorships, and other sources of revenue.[16] Third-party payments secured for the student-athletes do not count against the amount of money that may be distributed by the colleges to the student-athletes.[17]
  1. Roster Limits
The draft Settlement Agreement eliminated scholarship limits in Division 1 programs but instead imposed roster limits in order to control the sizes of Division 1 teams.[18] After hearing several complaints surrounding the roster limits, Judge Wilken required the parties to agree on an alternative solution prior to approving the Settlement Agreement that would guarantee that no athletes would lose their roster spots. The solution allows schools, but does not require schools, to give players their roster spots back whose spots were cut due to the Settlement Agreement. Some examples of the roster limits imposed are 105 for football, 15 for men’s and women’s basketball, 48 for men’s lacrosse, 38 for women’s lacrosse, and 28 for men’s and women’s soccer.[19] This could include more scholarships for players but will limit the roster spots for walk-ons or partial scholarship athletes.
  1. Opposition

Several athletes spoke out against the Settlement Agreement at an approval hearing held on April 7, 2025, before Judge Wilken. The objections included arguments that settlement payments are inaccurate and lack transparency with how they are calculated, challenges to the imposed roster limits, arguing that they would unfairly reduce opportunities for athletes, and concerns over the disproportionate financial distributions to football and basketball over Olympic sports. One notable objection came from Livvy Dunne, a gymnast from Louisiana State University, and one of the most profitable athletes in the NIL era, who argued that some calculations of damages were not accurate based on the value of some of the more profitable athletes lost. Several other athletes argued that the roster limits would create less opportunities for student-athletes who would have otherwise had opportunities on college sports teams.

There is also outspoken opposition to the implementation of a clearinghouse to determine whether payment to an athlete can correctly determine a student athlete’s fair market value. Several coaches have expressed their skepticism or come out against the NCAA outsourcing the enforcement of payments directly to athletes.[20]
  1. Open Questions
Despite this Settlement Agreement bringing much needed structure to the landscape of NIL, there are still several unanswered questions regarding the future of paying student-athletes in college sports. Judge Wilken most notably stated that this class action is neither a Title IX case nor a labor and employment case and specifically stipulated that the Settlement Agreement does not preclude athletes from bringing cases alleging the NCAA violated Title IX or labor and employment laws, including wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act or the National Labor Relations Act.

Payments made pursuant to this Settlement Agreement could violate Title IX if they are made disproportionately to male athletes over female athletes, but the question still remains whether these payments are subject to Title IX. The Biden Administration’s US Department of Education initially provided guidance to schools that the payments directly from the schools were similar to financial aid and must therefore be proportionately distributed under Title IX.[21] The Trump Administration, however, recently rescinded that guidance, stating that Title IX states nothing “about how revenue generating athletics programs should allocate compensation among student-athletes.”[22] Since there is no legal authority that payments directly from schools to student-athletes are covered under Title IX, it is still unclear whether payments could violate Title IX.

Additionally, the Settlement Agreement does not discuss whether student-athletes should be considered employees. There have been several petitions filed in recent years by student-athletes, including the University of Southern California men’s and women’s basketball teams, and the Northwestern football team, with the National Labor Relations Board, seeking to be classified as employees.[23] Dartmouth men’s basketball, the first successful student-athlete unionization, recently withdrew its petition to unionize after concerns that the new administration would result in a less favorable outcome for the team.[24] Although these athletes have not successfully been classified as employees, the Settlement Agreement does not prohibit student-athletes from continuing to bring these petitions.

There is also a question of whether international student-athletes playing in the United States will violate their visa status by taking payments.[25] Most student-athletes are on Class F class visas that prohibit almost all kinds of work while they are in the United States. It is still unclear whether the income generated by this Settlement Agreement or by NIL deals will violate international student athletes’ visas.

Although the Settlement Agreement will limit antitrust claims against the NCAA, the NCAA continues to ask Congress to provide an antitrust exemption for the NCAA which would protect the NCAA from any additional antitrust lawsuits.[26] Congress has yet to act.[27]

This settlement finally allows colleges to directly pay athletes, there is, however, still ambiguity for the future of the NCAA and the compensation towards its athletes.

  1. How Can We Help?

Whiteford is here to assist colleges and athletes navigate through this new era of NIL and college sports. Our team has extensive experience in advising clients on regulatory compliance, creating manuals, and providing guidance to ensure both athletes and their institutions are in compliance with the new NCAA rules and regulations. We continue to closely monitor the evolving and dynamic legal landscape affecting college sports.

[1] Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Statement Approval, at 3, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).
[5] Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, at 3, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).
[7] Appendix A to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, at 5-6, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).
[12] The Athletic College Football Staff, What’s at stake with the House v. NCAA settlement? Goodbye amateurism, hello revenue sharing, The Athletic (April 7, 2025); Dan Wetzel and Pete Thamel, Sifting legitimate NIL deals from the darker world of pay-to-play, ESPN (April 2, 2025)
[13] Appendix A to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).
[14] Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, at 14, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).
[15] Appendix A to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, at 9, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).
[19] Appendix B to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, at 131, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.).
[20] Dan Wetzel and Pete Thamel, Sifting legitimate NIL deals from the darker world of pay-to-play, ESPN (April 2, 2025)
[21] U.S. Department of Education Rescinds Biden 11th Hour Guidance on NIL Compensation, U.S. Department of Education (February 12, 2025)
[23] Vern E. Inge, Jr., Claire Allenbach, Rafiq R. Gharbi, Client Alert: A Gift for NCAA Athletes? The NLRB Finds Merit for Employee-Athletes, Whiteford (January 5, 2023).
[24] Aryanna Qusba and Annabelle Zhang, Dartmouth men’s basketball team drops effort to unionize, The Dartmouth (January 2, 2025).
[25] Amanda Christovich, House v. NCAA Settlement Creates Potential Crisis for International Athletes, Front Office Sports (February 21, 2025).
[26] The Associated Press, What is the House settlement involving college sports and why does it matter? (April 7, 2025).



Link

5
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NIL

College Football TV Ratings: Army-Navy Game averages 7.84 million viewers

Published

3 hours ago

on

December 17, 2025

By


Once again in its standalone window, America’s Game came down to the wire last week. Ultimately, Navy got a second straight victory over Army, and it became CBS’ most-watched college football game of the season.

An average of 7.84 million people watched as Navy came away with the victory at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore. While it’s a 17% decrease from last year’s 9.4 million viewers – the best since at least 1990 – it’s still the second-best viewership for the game since 2018, according to Sports Business Journal’s Austin Karp.

SUBSCRIBE to the On3 NIL and Sports Business Newsletter

Last year’s Army-Navy game topped the previous high mark of 8.45 million viewers in 1992. In addition, it tops CBS’ slate of games this year, beating out the 5.6 million viewers who watched Indiana at Oregon in Week 7, according to data compiled by On3.

This year’s Army-Navy game also marked the last for CBS analyst Gary Danielson in the booth. He has worked 17 matchups between the two programs and will get ready for retirement following the Sun Bowl later this month. Charles Davis is set to join Brad Nessler in CBS’ lead booth starting next season.

With the victory, Navy extended its advantage in the all-time series against Army, which dates back to 1890. The Midshipmen have an all-time 64-55-7 record against the Black Knights.

How it happened: Navy defeats Army

Navy struck first in the first quarter of last week’s game, taking a 7-0 lead on a Blake Horvath touchdown. But Army responded with 13 points in the second quarter, including a rushing touchdown from Cale Hellums, to take the lead into halftime.

The two teams traded field goals in the third quarter as Army took a 16-10 lead into the final 15 minutes. That’s when Navy completed the comeback as Eli Heidenreich caught the 8-yard touchdown pass from Horvath, putting the Midshipmen back on top, 17-16. That held as the final, giving Navy a second straight win over Army in the historic game.

Horvath led the charge for Navy, rushing for 107 yards and a touchdown on the ground while adding 82 passing yards to go with the touchdown pass to Heidenrich. On the Army side, Hellums had 100 rush yards and a touchdown to go with 82 passing yards.

Both Army and Navy are now getting ready for their respective bowl games. The Midshipmen will head to the Liberty Bowl on Jan. 2, 2026 against Cincinnati while the Black Knights will square off against UConn in the Fenway Bowl on Dec. 27.



Link

1
Continue Reading

NIL

Ohio State QB Julian Sayin Announces NIL News Before College Football Playoff

Published

3 hours ago

on

December 17, 2025

By


Julian Sayin is looking to lead the Ohio State Buckeyes to the national title alongside several other stars like wide receiver Jeremiah Smith.

Ohio State heads into the College Football Playoff with one of the best rosters in the country, starring Sayin and Smith along with wide receiver Carnell Tate, safety Caleb Downs and linebacker Arvell Reese.

Advertisement

They’re heading into the playoffs as the No. 2 seed after losing to Indiana in the Big Ten title game. The Buckeyes will have a bye week to begin the CFP.

Other teams that will benefit from the bye week include Indiana, Texas Tech and Georgia.

During his time off, Sayin shared some exciting news off the field. The Ohio State Buckeyes quarterback has partnered with Wingstop and Dr Pepper in his latest NIL deal.

“Postseason calls for big plays with @drpepper and @wingstop, had to get the play card out,” Sayin posted.

Advertisement

Sayin committed to Ohio State after spending some time with the Alabama Crimson Tide.

While he was planning his college football career at Alabama, he made the move to the Big Ten and finished his first season as the starting quarterback as a Heisman Trophy finalist.

Sayin was ranked as the No. 1 quarterback and the No. 6 overall player in the 2024 recruiting class, per 247Sports.

Ohio State Buckeyes quarterback Julian Sayin (10) Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

Ohio State Buckeyes quarterback Julian Sayin (10) Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

Before signing his latest NIL deal and sharing the news with fans online, Julian Sayin had inked deals with The Foundation, Dick’s Sporting Goods and JLab Audio.

Advertisement

Related: Alabama Reacts to Ty Simpson News Before College Football Playoff

Related: SEC Program Fires Coach After College Football Season

This story was originally published by Athlon Sports on Dec 16, 2025, where it first appeared in the College section. Add Athlon Sports as a Preferred Source by clicking here.





Link

1
Continue Reading

NIL

Stars Stay, Others Head to Portal

Published

4 hours ago

on

December 17, 2025

By





College Football’s QB Carousel: Stars Stay, Others Head to Portal



































Link

3
Continue Reading

NIL

Texas A&M’s KC Concepcion has ‘not made a decision’ regarding future

Published

5 hours ago

on

December 17, 2025

By


Dec. 16, 2025, 5:06 a.m. CT

Texas A&M’s 2025 offense finished the regular season ranked 19th nationally, while starting quarterback Marcel Reed threw for a career high 2,932 yards and 25 touchdowns, with 13 going to star wide receivers KC Concepcion and Mario Craver, who completely rejuvenated a passing attack that failed to move the needle in key games down the stretch last season.

While Craver is expected to return next season for his all-important junior year, Concepcion has a choice to make regarding his future, choosing between a final year in College Station or declaring for the 2026 NFL Draft, where he is expected to be a first or second-round selection.

Whatever choice he makes is entirely up to him and his family, and while those of us in the media have written numerous articles about his draft standing, returning for his senior season could benefit his NFL future. Still, Concepcion is as mature as they come and is entirely focused on facing the Miami Hurricanes this Saturday during the first round of the College Football Playoff.





Link

3
Continue Reading

NIL

Josh Pate defends Joel Klatt amid G5 backlash, proposes second tier to College Football Playoff

Published

6 hours ago

on

December 17, 2025

By


FOX Sports analyst Joel Klatt found himself in a social media firestorm after comments he made about the Group of Five on a podcast appearance on Next Round Live. Clips of that interview quickly went viral with short snippets of some of the quotes.

The gist of those snippets suggested that Klatt was anti-G5, to the point of wanting the G5 kicked out of the College Football Playoff. Klatt intimated that the only thing keeping the G5 in the playoff currently is the threat of litigation.

College football analyst Josh Pate had his own thoughts on Joel Klatt’s take. He mostly came to the defense of the suddenly targeted analyst.

Pate first played a couple clips from Klatt’s appearance in their entirety. That offered more full context.

“Some of that was insane, I’m going to grant you that,” Pate said of Klatt’s points. “I just want to say the foundation of it I at least understand. The foundation of it is sound. Not all the parts of it. The foundation of it is sound.

“Couple of quotes there. No. 1, the G5 is in the College Football Playoff to avoid litigation is basically true.”

Pate lambasted the use of quote edits in condensing Joel Klatt’s much larger point into a few soundbites. He tried to explain how that’s misleading to his viewers.

“You know sometimes how you see a snapshot or a small soundbite of something and you get outraged by it and then you go on to learn the context of it two weeks later and you’re like, ‘Wow, I probably shouldn’t have gotten as outraged as I did over that,’ Pate said. “That is what is happening to Klatt. Admittedly he brought a lot of this on himself. …

“Now, what you probably saw was you probably saw quote edits like this or quote graphics like this. And if you’re listening on podcast just imagine scrolling through your social feed and there’s a picture of Klatt, looks like he’s somewhere sunny and happy and there’s a quote at the top, and it says, quote, ‘We don’t want Cinderellas. We want the best teams playing each other at the end. It’s the dumbest tournament and the least fair tournament in all of sports.’”

That part from Joel Klatt, obviously, was what many detractors latched onto. But it doesn’t take away from Klatt’s overall point about the G5, Pate pointed out.

So all the moaning over James Madison being in the playoffs is for naught. That’s just the way the current structure is set up.

“They are present in the playoff, they’re granted an auto bid in the playoff because if they are not then lawsuits will be filed immediately,” Pate said. “So that part’s accurate.

“Now whether or not you think it’s morally sound that they’re included in the playoff, that’s your own opinion. He’s got his, I’ve got mine, you’ve got yours. But he is right. Because in no other merit-based world where we just judged these teams on a static scale of quality, of resources and therefore what you do with the resources, and the results on the field and strength of schedule, in no world would James Madison be in the playoff. But the parameters of the playoff right now are that we take the five highest-ranked conference champs. So by every current rule James Madison is in the playoff and should be in the playoff. I don’t disagree with that. Tulane is in the playoff and should be in the playoff. I don’t disagree with the structure. I don’t disagree with the body of the playoff this year based on the current rules.”

So what’s the solution? Well, Joel Klatt also offered an answer for that. It just didn’t happen to go viral with the other stuff.

Klatt believes the G5 should effectively break off from the power conferences and host its own playoff. It would be a playoff tier between the FCS and the FBS.

“That’s been the same point that’s been made on my show,” Pate said. “So you notice if you really hated the G5 you’d just say, ‘Piss on the G5.’ That’s not what he did, despite the fact that that part didn’t get shared widely and it’s not what I’ve ever done on this show.

“Any time you have a problem with something, you ought to have a solution for it. So if your problem is, ‘Man, it makes little sense that we’ve got 136 teams pretending to play the same caliber of the sport’ you need to have a solution. That solution he just presented is the same one we’ve shared on this show, and that is a G5 playoff.”



Link

2
Continue Reading

NIL

How NIL has transformed Ohio State’s recruiting from star-chasing to strategic roster building

Published

7 hours ago

on

December 17, 2025

By


COLUMBUS, Ohio — The days of simply collecting as many five-star talents as possible in college football recruiting are over.

In a revealing Buckeye Talk podcast episode, Ohio State analysts Stephen Means and Andrew Gillis detailed how the program has shifted to a more sophisticated “roster construction” approach that mirrors NFL team building more than traditional college recruiting.

“I think that because the financial aspect has come into this but also just logical roster building that has become more of a focal point than star, star, star, star, stars,” explained Stephen Means. “Because for a long time, college football was like, get as much talent as you humanly can, develop it, cuz you were living in a world where the top 1% of college football had all the talent. And that’s not true anymore.”

This fundamental shift in philosophy is perhaps most evident in how Gillis described Ohio State’s running back recruiting needs for the 2027 class. While five-star David Gabriel Georgees tops their board, the approach is more nuanced than just stacking elite talent.

“If they got three five stars running backs, the odds that we got on this podcast and said that’s actually probably not that good is higher than it might seem because we were saying why is your asset management this? Like because hey, look at your your receiver recruiting was down. You couldn’t have spent some of that money on a receiver,” Gillis explained.

The financial component of recruiting has transformed how Ohio State approaches each position group and recruiting class. It’s no longer just about who’s the best player available, but whether investing heavily in one position might shortchange another.

“It is a math equation. It is a money equation at this point. You’re not going to go get three five stars at running back in a single class,” Gillis emphasized.

Means further elaborated on how NIL money has forced this change: “You can’t pay a fivestar recruit, fivestar recruit money and then have the guy sitting on the bench because there’s another guy with there’s only so much money to go around.”

This strategic approach has Ohio State looking at players through different lenses: “ready to go” immediate contributors (typically five-stars and top-100 recruits), “developmental” prospects (usually ranked 200-350 nationally), and “depth” pieces who might be ranked lower but fill specific roles.

The analysts identified several instances where this approach is evident in Ohio State’s 2027 planning. At quarterback, they’re content with a developmental prospect in Brady Edmonds rather than chasing another five-star. At wide receiver, despite already having five-star Jir Brown committed, they believe Ohio State needs another elite receiver plus two depth pieces to properly structure the room.

“Now we are talking about roster construction,” Means said. “And the reason why we structured it this way is okay, they went and got a devel they have a developmental quarterback in 2027. They probably need a ready to go quarterback in 2028 and they probably need a depth quarterback in 2029. And the cycle continues, right?”

This staggered approach ensures Ohio State will have players at different stages of development at every position, creating a sustainable pipeline of talent ready to contribute when needed.

“Everybody everybody’s running the same race, but they can’t be running it at the same pace or you’re not going to have a team to field every single year,” Means added.

The conversation revealed how Ohio State’s recruiting approach now more closely resembles NFL roster management, with considerations for “salary cap” (NIL budget), positional value, and development timelines all factoring into decisions that previously might have been simply about collecting the highest-ranked players available.

As college football continues to evolve in the NIL era, this strategic roster construction philosophy may become the new standard for elite programs looking to maintain sustainable success.

Here’s the podcast for this week:



Link

2
Continue Reading

Most Viewed Posts

Trending