The settlement approval hearing in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.) is set for April 7, 2025. Commonly known as the “House Settlement,” the pending resolution between plaintiffs and the NCAA, if approved by Judge Claudia Wilken, could have far-reaching implications for higher education NCAA-member institutions and student-athletes.
The pending settlement arises from a consolidated set of three antitrust actions brought by current and former Division-1 athletes: House v. NCAA: Hubbard v. NCAA; and Carter v. NCAA.
Plaintiffs Grant House and Sedona Price filed a class-action complaint in June 2020, asserting that the NCAA and its conferences violated antitrust law by restricting Plaintiffs and Class Members’ rights to license and sell their rights to their names, images, and/or likenesses. Judge Wilken later consolidated House with Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA which both brought similar claims against the NCAA and its conferences.
On October 7, 2024, the court preliminary approved the House Settlement Agreement and directed plaintiffs to give notice of the settlement to the settlement classes. On March 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their motion for final settlement approval and omnibus response to objections. The motion argued that class members’ response to the “landmark settlement has been overwhelmingly positive.” Plaintiffs also highlighted that the $2.576 billion damages settlement, if approved, would be “one of the largest in antitrust history.”
The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for April 7, 2025, at 10 a.m. P.T.
Athletes will be eligible to receive payment from NCAA-member schools. The proposed settlement requires the NCAA and its conferences to change all Division I and conference rules to permit payments to student-athletes. Each member-institution and student athlete will have the right to enter into an agreement for the student-athlete’s name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) rights.
Revenue Sharing will be established between NCAA-member schools and athletes. The House Settlement also sets forth a revenue sharing framework that will permit schools to distribute payments and benefits to student-athletes, in addition to existing scholarships and other benefits currently permitted by the NCAA. According to the settlement, schools will be able to spend 22% of specified revenue (which includes ticket sales, media rights deals, and sponsorships). This percentage will increase by 4% annually. Reports state that schools will be able to spend a maximum of $23.1 million at the onset, if the settlement is approved.
NCAA-member schools that are not part of the defendant conferences in the litigation have been given a June 15, 2025 deadline to declare whether they intend to make payments and provide benefits pursuant to the House settlement.
Former players will be compensated for deprivation of their name, image, and likeness rights. Former athletes, dating back to 2016, are eligible to receive a part of settlement’s pool of damages which exceeds $2.7 billion.[1]
Several current and former Division I athletes have submitted objections and letters, urging the Court to deny approval of the House settlement. We highlight two objections that raise issues that may arise if the settlement is approved.
Several objectors raise concerns that the settlement runs afoul of Title IX. Objectors cited and discussed a Department of Education “Fact Sheet” that discussed Title IX in the context of NIL. The Biden Administration published the guidance on January 16, a few days before President Trump took office. The fact sheet stated that NIL agreements between schools and their student-athletes are a form of athletic financial assistance that must be proportionally available to male and female athletes pursuant to Title IX. The Trump Administration rescinded that guidance on February 12, stating that “Title IX says nothing about how revenue-generating athletics programs should allocate compensation among student athletes.” In their motion for final settlement approval, plaintiffs argue that “the applicability of Title IX is an issue of legal statutory interpretation that the Court need not resolve to grant final approval of the settlement.”
Some objectors also argue that the proposed settlement includes an unlawful “cap” on the amount of compensation and benefits that schools may provide student athletes. As one letter argues, the settlement’s cap on athlete compensation “is not different in theory or purpose than previous caps found to violate antitrust laws.” Dkt. No. 705. A Statement of Interest filed by the Department of Justice during the final days of the Biden Administration argued that the “cap” amounts to an agreement among competing employers that “restrains competition among schools for payments above the cap.” Plaintiffs argue that the cap “was the only way to implement a compromise settlement” and that other antitrust class action settlements involving professional sports leagues have been adopted and approved.
Whether these arguments and others made by objectors will have any impact on Judge Wilken’s decision to approve or not approve the settlement remains to be seen.
Judge Wilken is set to hold a hearing on the House Settlement on April 7 at 10 a.m. PST. The public can watch the hearing here.
After the April 7 hearing, Judge Wilken will presumably take the arguments under advisement and eventually approve or not approve the settlement. Even if the settlement is approved, her decision could be appealed to the Ninth Circuit by objectors.
Earlier this month, the NCAA announced a Settlement Implementation Committee, made up of 10 athletics directors (two from each defendant conference) and the legal and compliance teams from the conferences and the NCAA. This committee, according to the NCAA, will be divided into four different working groups focused on different components of the settlement, including one group drafting new rules and clarifying existing rules to facilitate compliance with the settlement, another group is tasked with forming a new enforcement entity to enforce these rules.
It is important to follow these developments and consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with the House Settlement and the forthcoming new rules from the NCAA, if the settlement is approved. Please contact one of the attorneys below or your regular Crowell contact to learn more.
Four years after being fired by LSU, Ed Orgeron has not been shy about his desire to get back into coaching.
Plenty has changed in the college football landscape in those years, most notably players being able to get paid via name, image and likeness deals and now through revenue sharing directly from the schools themselves. That’s an adjustment every coach has had to make, and some have adapted to the new way of the college football world better than others.
In a recent appearance on “Bussin’ With The Boys,” Orgeron joked that after all his years coaching in the SEC, paying players via NIL will only require a “minor adjustment.”
“They say, ‘Hey coach, you been out of coaching for awhile. How you gonna adjust to NIL?’ Orgeron said. “I said, well, it’s a minor adjustment. ‘What do you mean?’ Well, back then we used to walk through the back door with the cash. Now we just gotta walk through the front door with the cash.”
Orgeron has long been known as an elite recruiter and that’s not a title one could get without knowing how to get things done in the shadows. Now all those conversations and negotiations happen above the table, and Orgeron is pretty confident he can make that small adjustment if he were to land back on a sideline soon.
Orgeron, of course, coached LSU to a national title in 2019 but was let go following the 2021 season. In all, Orgeron had a 51-20 record leading LSU, but went just 11-11 combined in the two years following the national championship. He has not coached since, but the 64-year-old is looking to get back in the action — perhaps even back in Baton Rouge with the Tigers.
I’m emptying my notebook on the football coaching searches at Washington State and Portland State. Also, I have thoughts on the bowl game opt-outs by a growing number of schools. And I have some information on James Madison University, Oregon’s first-round opponent in the College Football Playoff.
Plus, a cameo in today’s installment by the front-desk manager at Planet Fitness.
Let’s go…
Pro Football Hall of Fame quarterback and Fox Sports NFL color analyst Troy Aikman wanted to help UCLA football through name, image and likeness donations, but his experience has made him apprehensive about contributing again.
Aikman shared his experience on Monday’s episode of “Sports Media Podcast with Richard Deitsch,” hosted by The Athletic’s sports media reporter Richard Deitsch.
“I gave money to a kid,” Aikman admitted. “I won’t mention who. I’ve done it one time at UCLA. I never met the young man. He was there a year, but he left after the year. I wrote a sizable check and he went to another school. I didn’t even get so much as a thank-you note, so it’s one of those deals where I’m done with NIL. I want to see UCLA be successful, but I’m done with it.”
NIL has become big business in college football. According to 247 Sports, the top five schools in spending (Texas, Ohio State, LSU, Georgia and Texas A&M) spent a combined $98 million in NIL money in 2025, and the number will likely increase next season.
Aikman still believes NIL money should go to players, but he says the system needs changes that benefit the sport without creating a convoluted mess.
“There has to be some leadership at the very top that kind of cleans all of this up, starting with players who accept money. There has to be some accountability and responsibility on their behalf, to have to stick to a program.”
Few recruiters in college football worked harder than Ed Orgeron. No matter which school he was representing, Orgeron did a great job bringing in some great talent. However, most of his work came in the pre-NIL era, meaning he could not, technically, use money in the process.
So when talking about how he would adapt with NIL now legal, Orgeron hilariously said there would just be a slight difference. He does not have to be subtle about the aspect of giving certain recruits a bag to help gain a commitment.
SUBSCRIBE to the On3 NIL and Sports Business Newsletter
“You know what?” Orgeron began on Bussin’ With The Boys. “They say, ‘Hey, coach. You know, you’ve been out of coaching for a while. How are you going to adjust to NIL?’ I said, ‘Well, it’s a minor adjustment.’ They said, ‘What do you mean?’ I said, ‘Back then, we used to walk through the back door with the cash. Now, we just got to walk through the front door with the cash.’”
The question began by specifically mentioning SEC programs. Orgeron has worked for four of those throughout his career, one of which likely involved zero recruiting. His first job within the SEC came at Arkansas as the assistant strength coach. But as Orgeron climbed up the ladder in his career, prominent roles became available.
None more memorable than being LSU‘s head coach from 2016 through 2021. Everyone remembers the famous national championship in 2019, led by Joe Burrow, and backed by one of the best rosters college football has ever seen. Orgeron was also in charge at Ole Miss beginning in 2005, lasting three seasons.
Lane Kiffin employed Orgeron as the assistant head coach, defensive line coach, and recruiting coordinator at Tennessee in 2009. Everyone knows how that ended, infamously leaving for USC, only for Orgeron to follow him.
Getting back to the present — reports indicate Orgeron might be interested in getting back into the coaching world. He has not held a position since getting fired by LSU, making it four seasons now. One even suggested Orgeron might be a candidate to link back up with Kiffin in Baton Rouge.
If something does come to fruition, a great recruiter will be joining the program. Orgeron is one of the best, even when paying players was not totally legal. But now, his job is a whole lot easier with a direct parth through the front door.
SMU has launched Mustang Partners, a new revenue-generating division focused on pursuing revenue and brand opportunities to benefit both athletes and the athletic department.
With the full-service revenue, NIL and brand unit, SMU becomes the latest school to launch such a program in recent months — joining Clemson, Kentucky and Michigan State — as athletic departments look to expand revenue streams.
Mustang Partners’ portfolio will include sponsorships in collaboration with media and technology company Learfield, philanthropy, exclusive gameday experiences and ticket sales, and it will add commercial NIL, special events and trademark and licensing.
“Mustang Partners is a bold new chapter in the story of SMU athletics,” SMU Athletic Director Damon Evans said in a statement. “Today’s rapidly evolving collegiate athletics marketplace demands programs to be more innovative, more adaptable and more resolute in pursuing new opportunities and ideas. This new venture will position SMU at the forefront of the next era of collegiate athletics.”
SMU closed the 2025 fiscal year with “historic momentum,” according to its news release, led by a record-breaking year for the Mustang Club. The club raised $65,058,040 in cash gifts from 6,158 donors, the highest single-year cash total in SMU history.
The Mustangs also sold a record number of football season tickets in 2024, doubling 2023’s total and increasing revenue 157%. SMU also saw substantial increases in concessions (108%), parking (98%) and licensing revenue (120%).
Mustang NIL is a strategy to drive financial and branding opportunities for SMU athletes.
The division will focus on the development of new premium amenities within Gerald J. Ford Stadium, Moody Coliseum and other athletic venues. The school completed a market study to evaluate new premium areas within Ford Stadium this fall.
Mustang Partners expands on trademark and licensing activities, including the addition of the university’s first full-time director of trademarks and licensing.
The division will also focus on booking special events and concerts into SMU venues, as well as rentals of premium hospitality areas for corporate retreats, meetings and private events.
Brian Ullmann, executive director of athletics, will lead Mustang Partners’ staff of 60. The senior leadership team will include Alex Gary, deputy athletic director of external relations; Lauren Adee, deputy athletic director/chief marketing officer/chief revenue officer; and Sean Penix, senior associate athletic director/commercial strategy.
via: The Athletic | By Sam Khan Jr. and Antonio Morales
When the early signing period opens Wednesday for Class of 2026 recruits, most high school players will sign two documents instead of one. The first is a financial aid agreement that formalizes their scholarship commitment. The second, increasingly common among Power 4 recruits, is a revenue-sharing contract that details how much their school will pay them directly.
This marks a fundamental shift in college athletics compensation. Following the House v. NCAA settlement, schools can now pay players directly through revenue-sharing agreements, separate from the third-party name, image and likeness (NIL) deals that have been the primary compensation method since 2021.
To understand what recruits actually earn, The Athletic surveyed general managers, personnel staffers and agents across college football, all granted anonymity for candor. The findings reveal a complex market where recruiting rankings, position, physical readiness and institutional resources create dramatic variations in compensation.
Power 4 quarterback recruits lead compensation tiers, mirroring the premium placed on the position at higher levels of football. Five-star quarterbacks typically secure between $750,000 and $1 million annually, according to three industry sources interviewed by The Athletic.
The baseline for Power 4 quarterback signees starts between roughly $100,000 and $300,000, with rankings driving the range upward. One agent noted that a top-150 quarterback in the 2026 class is receiving between $300,000 and $400,000 in his first year because he’s not expected to start immediately at his committed school.
Michigan freshman Bryce Underwood, the top recruit in the 2025 class, represents an extreme outlier with a multi-year deal worth upwards of $10 million. Sources described this as exceptional, driven by Underwood’s status as a consensus No. 1 recruit widely expected to start immediately.
Offensive and defensive linemen attract similarly substantial offers, though compensation depends heavily on physical development. “If you’re talking about a developmental player it could be $100,000 to $400,000-$500,000 (for offensive linemen),” a Power 4 personnel staffer told The Athletic. Defensive linemen fall into similar ranges, though edge rushers typically receive slightly less than interior linemen.
Upper six-figure and seven-figure offers aren’t unusual for five-star linemen. “Seven-hundred (thousand), that’s the number for a premium tackle,” a Power 4 personnel director said, adding that keen evaluators can still find quality prospects for half that amount.
Texas Tech’s commitment from Felix Ojo, the No. 2 offensive tackle nationally, came with a three-year deal paying $775,000 annually, a school source confirmed to The Athletic.
Receivers occupy the next compensation tier because they can contribute immediately. “We have receivers as freshmen who are making $300,000 to $400,000 because you can play right away at a much higher clip than offensive linemen,” one agent explained. “You’re paid closer to the starting market at receiver because teams are more confident that they can play you right away.”
Receivers who aren’t immediate contributors typically fall into the high five-figure or low six-figure range. Cornerbacks follow similar compensation scales, with pay tied directly to college readiness upon arrival.
Running backs, tight ends and safeties comprise a third tier, with compensation starting in the mid-to-high five figures and reaching around $200,000. Elite players at the top of their position can exceed these ranges significantly. USC tight end commit Mark Bowman, ranked No. 3 at his position, is believed to be receiving a multi-year deal worth above seven figures annually, according to On3.
One Power 4 general manager operates by a simple formula: whatever a top-tier starter receives in the transfer portal, the high school equivalent should cost roughly half as much.
Multi-year contracts remain relatively rare for high school prospects. An agent estimated just 5 percent of high school recruits sign multi-year deals, with quarterbacks and offensive linemen most likely to receive them. “We see more two-year deals for O-linemen because it’s understood that you’re going to have to develop physically in Year 1,” the agent said.
Despite the compensation trend, some recruits still sign for scholarship-only deals. Industry insiders term these “free” players, meaning they receive no additional NIL or revenue-sharing money beyond their scholarship.
One Power 4 general manager with a roster budget exceeding $20 million said three scholarship recruits joined his program for free this summer. A second personnel director confirmed his incoming class also includes several free players.
This approach is more common at non-blue-blood Power 4 programs with tighter resources. “Everyone knows everyone else is getting paid so they want a little piece,” a Power 4 personnel director said. “Now not everyone’s six figures, but everyone’s getting something.”
One Power 4 assistant coach questioned whether every high school recruit warrants extra compensation beyond scholarship. Projecting teenager development remains unpredictable, making it difficult to hit on more than half of any recruiting class.
Most Power 4 athletic departments operate at or near the revenue-sharing cap of $20.5 million, with 65 to 75 percent allocated to football rosters. Power 4 football roster budgets typically range from $13 million to $15 million, with top spenders exceeding $25 million.
The Group of 5 landscape looks dramatically different. No G5 programs operate near the revenue-sharing cap. Most G5 roster budgets in 2025 ranged between $1 million and $10 million, though the majority stayed below $5 million.
This resource gap means G5 recruits typically receive annual compensation in the five-figure range, if they’re paid at all. Top G5 recruits might reach upper five figures. One agent noted that $3,000 monthly for a G5 recruit isn’t uncommon.
With limited budgets, these schools prioritize retaining current players and portal additions over high school recruiting investment. “Unless you’re a QB or special kid, I don’t think you’re gonna give kids six figures (out of high school),” a Group of 5 general manager said. “It’s such a gamble with high school kids. There’s just so many things you can’t account for when they make the transition to college. We’ll pay you more if you come in and earn it.”
Portal spending attracts more attention because proven players command higher prices. “You’re paying for snaps,” the Power 4 general manager explained.
However, industry sources unanimously agree that landing quality high school recruits remains essential for program building, even at increased cost. “You feel better paying a college kid who you’ve seen play and has snaps and starts and all that stuff than you do a high school kid,” a second Power 4 personnel director said. “But the high school kid you almost have to pay a recruitment fee because there’s all these other schools bidding on them.”
The tension emerges when new recruits sometimes earn more than established players on the two-deep roster. Yet hitting on high school recruits costs less long-term than building primarily through the portal. Homegrown recruits often remain more comfortable at their school, having bought into coaches and schemes, sometimes accepting less compensation to stay.
“It’s like the NFL Draft,” one personnel director said. “No one wants to live in free agency. You want to live in the draft, build your core there and supplement it with positions that are needs (in the portal).”
When bidding wars occur, market dynamics take over. “The market is what the highest person is willing to pay,” the director noted.
The revenue-sharing era has created transparent compensation structures that vary dramatically by position, recruiting ranking, physical readiness and institutional resources. The disparity between Power 4 and Group of 5 programs will likely widen as top talent follows larger budgets.
Programs must now balance paying for proven portal talent against investing in high school development. Those that successfully identify undervalued high school prospects while strategically supplementing through the portal will likely find competitive advantages.
The market remains fluid as programs, agents and recruits navigate these new dynamics. As one agent summarized: “The reality is any school is gonna pay any amount of money that they deem worth it. If a school deems a guard worth $750K, they’ll pay it.”
This analysis is based on reporting by Sam Khan Jr. and Antonio Morales for The Athletic, published December 2, 2025.
Photo: USA TODAY
YSBR provides this content on an “as is” basis without any warranties, express or implied. We do not assume responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, legality, reliability, or use of the information, including any images, videos, or licenses associated with this article. For any concerns, including copyright issues or complaints, please contact YSBR directly.
Youth Sports Business Report is the largest and most trusted source for youth sports industry news, insights, and analysis covering the $54 billion youth sports market. Trusted by over 50,000 followers including industry executives, investors, youth sports parents and sports business professionals, we are the premier destination for comprehensive youth sports business intelligence.
Our core mission: Make Youth Sports Better. As the leading authority in youth sports business reporting, we deliver unparalleled coverage of sports business trends, youth athletics, and emerging opportunities across the youth sports ecosystem.
Our expert editorial team provides authoritative, in-depth reporting on key youth sports industry verticals including:
Whether you’re a sports industry executive, institutional investor, youth sports parent, coach, or sports business enthusiast, Youth Sports Business Report is your most reliable source for the actionable sports business insights you need to stay ahead of youth athletics trends and make informed decisions in the rapidly evolving youth sports landscape.
Join our growing community of 50,000+ industry leaders who depend on our trusted youth sports business analysis to drive success in the youth sports industry.
Stay connected with the pulse of the youth sports business – where industry expertise meets actionable intelligence.
Sign up for the biggest newsletter in Youth Sports – Youth Sports HQ – The best youth sports newsletter in the industry
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow Youth Sports Business Report Founder Cameron Korab on LinkedIn
Introducing Play Up Partners, a leading youth sports marketing agency connecting brands with the power of youth sports. We specialize in youth sports sponsorships, partnerships, and activations that drive measurable results.
Play Up Partners is a leading youth sports marketing agency connecting brands with the power of youth sports. We specialize in youth sports sponsorships, partnerships, and activations that drive measurable results.
Youth sports represents one of the most engaged and passionate audiences in sports marketing. With over 70 million young athletes and their families participating annually, the youth sports industry offers brands unparalleled access to motivated communities with strong purchasing power and loyalty.
We’ve done the heavy lifting to untangle the complex youth sports landscape so our brand partners can engage with clarity, confidence, and impact. Our vetted network of accredited youth sports organizations (from local leagues to national tournaments and operators) allows us to create flexible, scalable programs that evolve with the market.
Every partnership we build is rooted in authenticity and value creation. We don’t just broker deals. We craft youth sports marketing strategies that:
We’re positioning youth sports as the most desirable and effective platform in sports marketing. Our mission is simple: MAKE YOUTH SPORTS BETTER for athletes, families, organizations, and brand partners.
Common Questions About Youth Sports Marketing
Where can I sponsor youth sports? How do I activate in youth sports? What is the ROI of youth sports marketing? How much does youth sports sponsorship cost?
We have answers. Reach out to info@playuppartners.com to learn how Play Up Partners can help your brand navigate the youth sports landscape.
Youth sports organizations: Interested in partnership opportunities? Reach out to learn about our accreditation process.
Why a rising mid-major power with an NCAA Tournament team opted out of revenue-sharing — and advertised it
NBA Legend Michael Jordan to Join NBC Sports as Special Contributor
Falcons mailbag
Portal Update – Basketball and Gymnastics Take Hits
has always dreamed in Mercurial. Now his initials are on the boots.
The new Kyl…
First Tee Winter Registration is open
Fargo girl, 13, dies after collapsing during school basketball game – Grand Forks Herald
CPG Brands Like Allegra Are Betting on F1 for the First Time
F1 Las Vegas: Verstappen win, Norris and Piastri DQ tighten 2025 title fight
Two Pro Volleyball Leagues Serve Up Plans for Minnesota Teams
Sycamores unveil 2026 track and field schedule
Utah State Announces 2025-26 Indoor Track & Field Schedule
Redemption Means First Pro Stock World Championship for Dallas Glenn
Bowl Projections: ESPN predicts 12-team College Football Playoff bracket, full bowl slate after Week 14
Texas volleyball vs Kentucky game score: Live SEC tournament updates
