“We crafted the term student-athlete, and soon it was embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations as a mandated substitute for such words as players and athletes.”

That was Walter Byers, writing in his 1995 book “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Exploiting College Athletes.” Forty-four years prior, he’d been named the first executive director of the rapidly expanding NCAA. (Obviously, his mind had changed along the way.)

Why’d the NCAA concoct “student-athlete”? Because those are just college students who happen to play sports, not people employed by athletic departments as revenue generators … your honor. (“South Park” was all over this in 2011, months after an Auburn student named Cam Newton paused his studies to seek full-time employment.)

Years later, Byers’ confession remains one of the starkest reasons to mistrust the NCAA’s favored jargon. And lately, another term has appeared a lot in college sports contexts. It strikes me as curious, the way it’s being used right now:

“Revenue sharing.”

The term has emerged as the most important part of the long-awaited legal settlement that will greatly reshape college sports, following its approval late last week. This is that House v. NCAA thing that’d been drip-dripping in the news forever, the Colleges Can Now Pay Their Athletes Actual Money thing.

Except technically, according to the people who define what “technically” means, these transactions amounting to as much as $20.5 million per school aren’t payments. Technically, they’re merely revenue being shared.

The term “revenue sharing” makes total sense to me when we’re talking about 32 teams in a professional league pooling their money as veritable equals. But when we’re talking about powerful humans passing portions of money along to the less powerful humans who are doing the heavy labor that is the core attraction? That’s “sharing”? Jeff Bezos “shares” with delivery workers?

To make a little more sense of this, let’s turn to The Athletic’s Justin Williams, who’s been on the House beat for a long time now. He will maybe soon be free to write about things besides courtrooms. But not yet, because for now, he has been turned to by us.

Why is this called “revenue sharing,” and who was it that decided “salary cap” is a dangerous pairing of words that must never be uttered? Was it the NCAA? The courts? Doctor Strange?

The answer, as usual: lawyers. It’s helpful to remember that the House settlement was born out of the NCAA and power conferences attempting to avoid yet another high-profile defeat in court — and the financial ruin that could have come with it. Some of this is about progress, sure, but a lot of it is about the top stakeholders in college sports trying to mitigate the onslaught of legal battles in recent years.

It’s “revenue sharing” because the pool of money that can be paid directly from colleges to athletes under the settlement is calculated using the revenue that power conference athletic departments generate through television contracts, ticket sales and sponsorships. The reason it’s a “revenue cap” and not a “salary cap” is because “salary” would imply that the athletes are being paid for their services — or as employees — which remains taboo for the leaders of college sports. The settlement has ripped away the facade of amateurism, but the NCAA and power conferences still want to classify athletes as students, not employees.

Got it, thank you. I’ll keep calling it a “salary cap” until I am sued. (Since, after all, the NFL’s salary cap is also calculated based on that league’s revenue.) Speaking of lawyers, surely this was the last court battle on the subject of college athlete compensation, right?

Unlikely. Even the settlement’s most ardent supporters acknowledge that it is not a fix-all. There are still plenty of unresolved questions about things like Title IX, conflicting state laws, athlete employment status and whether the settlement’s efforts to curb third-party NIL deals violate antitrust laws. This is why the NCAA and power conferences continue to lobby Congress for antitrust exemptions and federal legislation that will preempt state laws and help set the settlement terms in stone. What that congressional intervention looks like — or whether it’s even a realistic option — remains to be seen. Until then, expect more lawsuits. Billable hours remain undefeated.

Thank you to Justin. For more from him, try out his full story on how college sports money works now, which is packed with details like this:

“The top (football) teams are going to cost $40-50 million a year,” said one power conference personnel director. “That’s where this is going. Anyone who thinks different is nuts.”

Okie dokie. Below, we have plenty more House ramifications, after a quick break for non-House news.

(Side note. Now that I think about it, the term “revenue sharing” feels OK, on one condition: The NCAA’s most powerful member schools admit the sharing of revenue is exactly how employer-employee relationships have worked since many thousands of years ago, when one caveperson first paid another caveperson in berries to go trade an axe for a hammer.)

• About NBC4 Washington
• Our News Standards
• Submit Tips for Investigations
• Newsletters
• Connect With Us
• Xfinity: Internet, TV, streaming, more

• WRC Public Inspection File
• WRC Accessibility
• WRC Employment Information
• Send Feedback
• FCC Applications
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices
• Advertise with us
• CA Notice
• Ad Choices

Copyright © 2025 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All rights reserved

Amid the constant changes in college athletics, fans can feel like they’re being left behind. While the SEC has done a better job of maintaining fan engagement, largely by making sure most of the games can be viewed without an extra subscription service, it’s more expensive than ever to be a college football fan.

Without getting into politics, it’s the flat-out truth that it is more expensive than ever to attend a college football game if you don’t live in the city that your favorite team plays in. College football fans feel alienated by the constant demand for money to support their favorite team. Then on top of that, they’re being asked to donate more money to their school’s collective to “help with NIL” and the growing costs of college football rosters.

It can make fans feel like their favorite school doesn’t care about them, and Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne has faced that criticism in recent months. Byrne spent time on various radio shows and television networks asking Alabama fans for more donations to Yea Alabama, the Crimson Tide’s NIL collective. Fans took it as if Byrne doesn’t care about you unless you donate money to his athletic department.

That simply isn’t the case, however. On Tuesday, Byrne joined Greg McElroy and Cole Cubelic on Mac and Cube to discuss, calling the perceived lack of care for fans, ‘a bunch of hooey.’

“The fans are critical,” Byrne told the two former SEC stars. “I know sometimes people say the athletics department doesn’t care about fans. That’s a bunch of hooey. We may not charge the prices they want us to charge. I understand and appreciate the fact people are trying to make budgets work and be a part of things they’re interested in, which we’re fortunate we have so many fans at Alabama. We need to make sure we do everything we can to give them a good product out on the field and courts at the same time to give them outside the stadium from the time they get here to the time they get to their seats, hopefully it’s as efficient a process as possible.”

Byrne had spent time over the spring asking fans for more donations to Yea Alabama. According to Alabama’s Athletic Director himself, that has now changed thanks to the House v. NCAA Settlement from federal judge Claudia Wilkin. Fans giving to the collective will now be “very limited going forward,” according to Byrne. The collective will now convert into a content and marketing site.

Byrne said the Tide is constantly trying to evolve with what it provides to fans.

“We are trying to evolve with what the services that we offer to ur fans,” Byrne said. “At the same time, too, we have to make sure the fans understand why we are changing the way we did.”

Wyatt Fulton is the Tide 100.9 DME and Brand Manager, primarily covering Alabama Crimson Tide football and men’s basketball. For more Crimson Tide coverage, follow Wyatt on X (Formerly known as Twitter) at @FultonW_.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken delivered another game-changer for college sports by granting final approval to the 10-year settlement between the NCAA, power conferences and current and former Division I athletes represented by the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations.

Sportico answers the key questions about the settlement and the unresolved legal and business issues moving forward.

1)        In brief, what does the House settlement do?

The settlement converts intercollegiate athletics into a system that’s much closer to professional sports.  

The settlement will pay out $2.8 billion in damages over a 10-year period to qualified D-I athletes who played at some point from 2016. It will compensate them for lost NIL, video game and broadcasting opportunities resulting from past NCAA eligibility rules. 

The settlement also allows participating colleges to directly pay athletes a share of up to 22% of the average power conference athletic media, ticket and sponsorship revenue, with $20.5 million expected as the initial annual cap. Those payments will be in addition to athletic scholarships, which cover tuition, housing, health resources and other benefits, as well as NIL deals athletes sign with third parties. 

The settlement also ends caps on the number of athletic scholarships a school can provide while adding roster limits.

Further, the settlement calls for neutral review of NIL deals that are worth more than $600. NIL Go, an entity led by Deloitte in partnership with the new College Sports Commission, will review deals to ensure they reflect fair market value.

2)        Do colleges now have to share revenue with their athletes?

No, and most won’t. Colleges now have the choice to opt into a system where revenue is shared with athletes. Colleges in power conferences will do so, but most schools won’t. For example, the Ivy League, whose schools do not offer athletic scholarships, has announced it is not opting in and will maintain a more traditional view of athletes as amateurs.

3)       Do colleges that opt in have to share $20.5 million with athletes?

No. The $20.5 million is a cap, not a floor. Some schools will share less. Schools that opt in will perceive it as necessary to remain competitive against rival schools for recruitment of athletes. But if rivals are sharing closer to $5 million than $20 million, expect to see similar amounts of sharing by other schools.

4)        Are future athletes bound by this 10-year settlement?

Only if they agree to be bound as part of their matriculation into college. If they refuse, they could forgo the settlement’s benefits and bring their own lawsuits. The NCAA is banking on athletes seeing the settlement as favorable for the years they’ll spend in college. These athletes can land full athletic scholarships, NIL deals and potentially lucrative shares of revenue. While theoretically these athletes might negotiate more money in a freer market, whether they’d want to spend their college years in court in hopes of making that happen is another matter. 

5)        Could colleges sharing more revenue with male athletes than female athletes violate Title IX?

Yes. A distribution of funds that pays male athletes more could violate Title IX. To the extent those distributions count as athletic financial assistance within the meaning of Title IX, unequal sharing would prove problematic for some schools (there are different tests for Title IX compliance). There are counterarguments, including that revenue-sharing is based on the use of the athletes’ right of publicity, which is ordinarily tied to the athlete’s unique identity, and thus arguably outside the scope of Title IX. There will no doubt be litigation on this topic.

6)        But didn’t President Trump rescind President Biden’s proclamation on Title IX and revenue sharing?

President Trump rescinded an agency factsheet, which is a non-binding document and not a law, issued by the Department of Education in the waning days of President Biden’s presidency. It appears the Trump administration does not view revenue-sharing as within the scope of Title IX, which suggests the Department of Justice will not take steps to stop it. However, regardless of the Justice Department’s disposition, athletes can bring Title IX lawsuits against schools through a private right of action. This matter will be resolved in the courts.

7)        Does the House Settlement end NIL collectives?

No, but it will transform their roles. Collectives have operated as booster groups that are separate from the school but aligned with athletic department objectives, such as pursuit of coveted recruits. NIL collectives have been criticized for offering athletes what are termed “NIL deals” but are essentially pay-for-play arrangements. With colleges now able to pay players directly, collectives will likely shift to marketing and booster activities on behalf of athletes. Collectives can still strike NIL deals with athletes, but deals that exceed $600 will be subject to review by NIL Go to ensure they reflect fair market value.

8)        Won’t review of NIL deals chill the NIL market?

It might, but it depends on what one means by NIL. NIL stems from the right of publicity, a right provided by states that protects the commercial qualities of individuals—including their name, image and likeness but also their voice, signature and anything that makes them unique. College athletes had rights to those commercial qualities long before NIL became a thing. But until 2021, NCAA eligibility rules denied athletes’ use of NIL as a condition of eligibility. Some athletes have signed what are reported as NIL deals but are better understood as pay-for-play arrangements, since they are payments conditioned on an athlete attending and staying at a school. NCAA rules forbid pay-for-play. If review of NIL deals means athletes sign deals that reflect their NIL and not going to a college, that would better align NIL deals with an individual’s actual NIL rights. 

9)        Won’t athletes sue when their NIL deals are rejected?

The House settlement’s design of NIL review includes an arbitration provision. This has not received much attention but is very important. As Sportico detailed, athletes whose NIL deals are rejected will first need to arbitrate before they can litigate. Arbitration is conducted in private, and federal law obligates judges to give great deference to arbitration awards. So, athletes can sue, but it will be much harder than it’s been with athlete antitrust litigation. Some plaintiffs’ attorneys who view NIL lawsuits as attractive in terms of potential money and media attention will be deterred by the prospect of overcoming arbitration.

10)        Where will colleges come up with $20.5 million when many say they need money?

That’s the 20.5-million-dollar question. Colleges are facing numerous headwinds these days. There’s the enrollment cliff, where the college-age population in the U.S. will drop in the ballpark of 10% to 15% from 2025 to 2029. There’s the Trump administration’s hostility toward international students, who often pay full tuition. And there’s the cutting of government grants. All of these factors are occurring as some colleges will elect to share revenue with athletes. Don’t be surprised if colleges increase student fees as a way of generating more revenue. Also, expect some schools to restructure. On the athletics side, expect some schools to cut the number of varsity teams and replace them with club teams.

11)        Could private equity be the solution to these problems?

Private equity can provide colleges with financial assistance, but the question is, what does PE want? PE is about making returns on investment, and in college athletics, that return might consist of a share of media rights, ticket sales or other perennial revenue streams. Unsettled questions remain about whether PE could gain control over school operations, such as whether to fire a coach and which athletes to recruit. Universities have numerous rules related to governance, with faculty often having an important stake and students having rights and duties as expressed in handbooks. The more control PE gains over a university, the more likely it will trigger disagreements with constituencies on campus. 

12)  How does the House settlement impact whether college athletes are employees?

In a direct sense, the settlement has no impact on whether college athletes are employees. The settlement merely resolves antitrust claims with a framework that Wilken approved. The classification of college athletes will need to emerge through separate legal action under labor and employment laws. 

That said, colleges paying athletes through revenue-sharing resembles compensation traditionally found in an employment relationship. Colleges already exert employment-like control over college athletes, including their course work and schedule, and that control might rise in the new pay model. Attorneys who advocate for the recognition of college athletes as employees will likely point to these factors as evidence of employment.

There is ongoing litigation, Johnson v. NCAA, before a federal district court in Pennsylvania. In Johnson, D-I athletes argue they are employees within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which would guarantee them minimum wage and overtime pay and treatment similar to that of work-study students. Although petitions involving Dartmouth College men’s basketball and USC football and basketball players for recognition of employment within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) were withdrawn following Trump’s election, athletes at a public university could file a petition under their state’s labor laws that they are employees. The NLRA governs employment questions at private colleges, whereas state colleges are governed by state laws. 

13)  Does the House settlement make it impossible for athletes to sue the NCAA on antitrust grounds?

No. The settlement covers the issues raised by the cases. It does not, for instance, cover whether NCAA rules can cap the athletics eligibility of athletes who would otherwise have a chance to continue with a school as a grad student and earn NIL money. Also, athletes who opted out of the settlement preserved their antitrust claims. An ongoing case, Hill v. NCAA, involves opt-outs and raises the same basic claims addressed in the settlement.

14)  So there is no way the NCAA can escape antitrust scrutiny? 

If the NCAA wants immunity from antitrust claims, it will need the athletes to be recognized as employees, allowing them to unionize and collectively bargain. The union could then negotiate a CBA with the NCAA and other college actors. Terms in a CBA that primarily relate to wages, hours and other working conditions would be exempt from antitrust scrutiny through the non-statutory labor exemption (which reflects a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions). But all of that is a nonstarter: The NCAA, conferences and colleges firmly oppose the recognition of college athletes as employees.

15)  Will Congress save the day and pass federal college sports legislation?

Like Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day, bills that intend to reform college sports in some way—such as a federal NIL framework, a declaration that college athletes aren’t employees, or the granting of NCAA antitrust immunity—keep resurfacing. Every Congress since the late 2010s has had at least one bill introduced, and they more or less follow the same script—media attention and provocative social media posts, and then a failure to advance in the legislative process. 

Perhaps this time around, with the House settlement complete, there will be more traction, since protecting the new world from litigation could be spun as protecting benefits for athletes. But Congress is tightly divided, and budget issues will dominate members’ attention for this summer and perhaps beyond. Also, as campaign season for the 2026 midterms approach, moving legislation will become even more difficult. Banking on Congress to solve problems is rarely a great bet, and it doesn’t seem to be here.