Key legal developments in college athletics

The influence of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights
continues to push the boundaries of college sports in unprecedented ways. From
the ripple effects of the transfer portal to the ongoing antitrust battles in
federal court, nearly every aspect of college athletics is now touched by the
high stakes of athlete endorsements – including pending litigation and a
patchwork of NIL laws and guidelines.

As we approach the midpoint of 2025, let’s review the power
plays and upsets for NIL stakeholders and consider how sports lawyers can guide
our athletes through new and evolving regulatory hurdles.

The transfer portal and shifting power dynamics

New Division I transfer rule changes were implemented to make
transferring “more flexible and streamlined,” according to the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Key updates included earlier
portal access, one-time transfer exceptions, and stricter academic standards
(requiring a minimum 2.0 GPA) to maintain academic integrity. These changes also
eliminated restrictions on the number of transfers an academically eligible
athlete can make during their career, provided they remain in good academic
standing.

With
that in mind, remember the name Nico Iamaleava, as a
precedent or rule could soon bear his name. His departure from Tennessee to
UCLA marks a pivotal moment in the transfer portal era. Despite leading the
Volunteers to a College Football Playoff appearance in 2024, Iamaleava announced his move to UCLA via Instagram on April
20, following a failed attempt to renegotiate his NIL deal from $2.4 million to
$4 million. Iamaleava’s decision to leave due to
compensation disputes underscores the shifting power dynamics between athletes
and programs. Notably, his move to UCLA-reportedly for a lesser NIL
deal-coincides with his younger brother, Nico, also transferring to UCLA. These
events signal a trend where top players may prioritize personal factors over
financial gain, potentially reshaping future transfer decisions and NIL
strategies.

In 2025,
with his transfer to UCLA, Nico Iamaleava will still
be considered a redshirt sophomore, as he has three years of eligibility
remaining under the NCAA’s five-year
clock rule.

The
growing influence of NIL negotiations on player movement has further
repercussions. At UCLA, Nico Iamaleava is expected to
take on the starting quarterback role for the 2025 season, signaling the
departure of Bruins quarterback Dermaricus Davis, a
four-star recruit ranked as the third-best QB prospect from California in the
2024 recruiting class. This high-profile move highlights the volatility of the
college landscape, as coaches seeking to build a legacy may now face new risks
and rewards when connecting with marquee players they did not recruit.

Eligibility rules, legal challenges and antitrust implications

NIL deals and antitrust laws are also influencing player eligibility. In an April court decision
involving Jett Elad, a 24-year-old Division I transfer to Rutgers University, a
U.S. district judge granted a preliminary injunction allowing Elad to continue
playing for the Scarlet Knights in the fall, despite having exhausted his NCAA
eligibility.

U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi concluded that NCAA
eligibility rules – which limit athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate
competition, including junior college seasons – are problematic under antitrust
law. Division I football players are part of a labor market and can secure
lucrative endorsement deals, using college football as a platform for the NFL.

“[The] injunction is potentially Elad’s only opportunity to
complete his Division I career and transition into the NFL,” wrote Judge
Quraishi.

The court’s injunction prevents the NCAA from declaring Elad
ineligible for the upcoming season, enhancing
his chances in the 2026 NFL draft. This legal decision may also spark
further discussion about the evolving nature of college sports and their
increasing resemblance to professional leagues or minor league systems.

The House settlement: Roster limits and revenue sharing

The interconnectedness of eligibility, the transfer portal, and
the billions of NIL dollars at stake all hinge on the pending settlement in House v. NCAA.

House v. NCAA is a federal class action antitrust lawsuit
filed in the Northern District of California by college athletes against the
NCAA and major conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC). The
plaintiffs allege that NCAA rules unlawfully restricted athletes from earning
NIL compensation, thus violating antitrust laws. The settlement also
encompasses related cases, including Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v.
NCAA.

Senior District Judge Claudia Wilken has been presiding over the
settlement for months, meticulously reviewing every detail to ensure the new
rulebook is properly finalized. On April 23, 2025, she introduced a significant
obstacle that could jeopardize the agreement. Judge Wilken demanded that the
parties revisit the section of the proposed $2.8 billion settlement pertaining
to roster limits – a provision several schools have already begun to implement.

The NCAA currently limits the number of scholarships a team can
offer but does not restrict total roster size. For example, FBS football
programs are allowed 85 scholarships but typically carry up to 120 players,
including walk-ons. Under the settlement, new roster limits would cap the total
number of athletes per team, though exact figures have yet to be finalized.

This change is designed to control financial exposure for
schools, which under the settlement would share up to 22% of their athletic
revenue directly with athletes. Fewer roster spots would mean fewer athletes
splitting those funds. However, the proposal has drawn criticism for
potentially reducing opportunities for non-scholarship athletes, especially
walk-ons, and raising Title IX concerns if women’s sports face disproportionate
cuts or unequal revenue-sharing benefits.

Judge Wilken warned that unless these issues are addressed, the
court may withhold final approval of the $2.8 billion settlement, giving all
sides 14 days to contact their mediator and return to the bargaining table.

More hurdles to clear

These are just some of the many issues challenging the NCAA and
the state of college athletics. Until Congress establishes a federal framework,
this patchwork of rules will continue to govern athletic activity both on and
off the field.

Stakeholders need support with strategy and decision-making, and
sports lawyers can provide our athletes and schools with the guidance necessary
to ensure compliance. This will help maintain the integrity of college sports
and suggest innovative ways to move forward in this new, NIL-driven era of
athletic competition.