On June 6, 2025, U.S. Northern District of California Judge
Claudia Wilken approved the National Collegiate Athletic
Association’s (NCAA’s) $2.8 billion athlete revenue
settlement (Settlement) in the consolidated case, In re College
Athlete NIL Litigation.¹ The Settlement will
reimburse a class of former college athletes for their previously
withheld name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation going back to
2016, with the majority of the Settlement funds going to college
football and men’s basketball scholarship players, and lesser
amounts to women’s basketball players and student athletes from
other sports. The Settlement also creates a system for the
NCAA’s Division I (D-I) institutions to share billions of
dollars of revenue with their student-athletes over the next ten
years, beginning July 1, 2025, through revenue-sharing NIL
agreements.

Background

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v.
Alston, 594 U.S. 69, student-athletes gained the opportunity to
receive compensation from third parties using their NIL. Although
hundreds of thousands of student-athletes have since profited, two
issues persisted: (1) the rules restricted NCAA member conferences
and schools from directly sharing revenue derived from the
commercial use of student-athletes’ NIL with
the student-athletes and (2) studentathletes who finished
playing before the Supreme Court’s decision lost the
opportunity to earn revenue from their college’s commercial
exploitation of their NIL. 

The In re: College Athlete NIL Litigation
Settlement

Subjects of the Settlement & Voluntary Opt-In /
Opt-Out 

The NCAA and the “Power Five” conferences (Conference
Defendants)—Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), the Big Ten
Conference, Inc. (Big Ten), the Big 12 Conference, Inc. (Big 12),
the Pac-12 Conference (Pac-12), and the Southeastern Conference
(SEC) (collectively, the Defendants)—and their “Member
Institutions” (meaning, any college, school, or university
that is a member in any sport of the North Carolina –
that was until a lawsuit was filed against the state’s Board of
Education compelling them to do otherwise.

That lawsuit, brought by Rolanda Brandon, on behalf of her minor
son Faizon Brandon (a highly rated 5-star quarterback), was filed
on August 23, 2024, in North Carolina’s General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division against the North Carolina State
Board of Education and North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction. Per the complaint, the Brandons asserted that although
the state of North Carolina’s legislature did direct the North
Carolina State Board of Education to regulate how high school
athletes could monetize their NIL, that the Board, in lieu of
regulating, prohibited it outright.² Because the Board
of Education exceeded their delegated statutory authority, the
Brandons’ claimed, its NIL prohibition was arbitrary and
capricious and therefore invalid pursuant to N.C. State Stat.
Section 1-253 and the North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 57.
The Brandons’ sought a preliminary injunction against the
Board’s NIL ban due to the fact that Faizon and his family
would be irreparably harmed financially because it precluded them
from entering into a formal licensing and endorsement agreement
with NIL Sponsor 1, while also foreclosing any
additional opportunities with other businesses in the
future.³ 

By way of background, in September of 2023, the North Carolina
state legislature adopted a bill directing the Board of Education
to “adopt rules governing high school interscholastic athletic
activities conducted by public school units” including
“student amateur status requirements, and rules related to use
of a student’s name, image, and likeness.”⁴ On
July 1, 2024, the North Carolina State Board of Education, in lieu
of adopting a set of regulatory rules, instead outright banned
every public high school athlete from using his or her name, image
or likeness for commercial purposes.⁵ That outright
prohibition, however, apparently was an overreach by the Board of
Education because on October 1, 2024, Superior Court Judge Graham
Shirley granted the Brandons’ motion for preliminary injunction
and enjoined the Board from prohibiting any athlete attending a
public school in the state of North Carolina from exercising his or
her right to monetize their NIL.

Although the state of North Carolina’s ruling is not legal
precedent for the other remaining states currently foreclosing high
school athletes from monetizing their NIL, those states should
take notice and understand that their prohibition may be vulnerable
to a legal challenge. That being said, with no national standards
regarding NIL, most of the forty states that do allow for
monetization rest upon their high school athletics governing body
to formulate any and all rules and regulations. This leads to a
variation of standards between states, but there are a few key
restrictions present in most of these rules that high school
athletes should be aware of:

• High school athletes typically may not refer to or include
  their school’s uniforms, logos, colors or facilities of the
  state’s high school athletic association in their NIL
  activities.




• High school athletes are typically prohibited from partnering
  with gambling, alcohol, tobacco, weapons, firearms, ammunition, and
  other adult categories brands. In those states where NIL op

portunities are allowed, high school athletes have a chance for
a significant financial windfall. However, athletes, their parents
and those advising them must ensure that any NIL agreement is in
accordance with the applicable rules of their state, since
noncompliance could lead to loss of eligibility to participate in
athletic competition, which will certainly jeopardize any future
athletic and financial opportunities.

NCAA D-I and/or a Conference Defendant)—plus Notre
Dame—are automatically bound to the Settlement and must
comply with its terms and requirements. Non–Power Five D-I
schools are not automatically covered by the revenue-sharing
component of the Settlement; however, they did have the opportunity
to opt in to the Settlement by June 15, 2025, to share NIL-related
revenue with athletes and join the enforcement and reporting
framework.

Notably, the Ivy League decided not to opt in. Ivy League
schools do not offer athletic scholarships, using need and
merit-based financial aid instead. The Ivy League views the
Settlement’s revenue-sharing model as a departure from its
principles of no athletic scholarships and avoidance of
pay-for-play. Although Ivy League athletes will not have the
opportunity to share revenue derived from their schools’
exploitation of their NIL, they can still pursue third-party NIL
deals.

Further, athletes who did not want to be part of the class (and
therefore want to preserve the right to sue the NCAA and Power Five
conferences for antitrust-related claims) had the opportunity to
opt out, which would exclude them from all aspects of the
Settlement.

Future Institutional RevenueSharing Framework

Beginning July 1, 2025, NCAA D-I and Power Five Member
Institutions may enter into exclusive or non-exclusive NIL licenses
and/or endorsement agreements with athletes to share revenue
for athletes’ NIL and institutional brand promotion, excluding
broadcast rights for a term not to exceed the student-athlete’s
eligibility to participate in NCAA sports. Member Institutions may
act as the marketing agent for studentathletes with respect to
third-party NIL contracts.

Further, Member Institutions, and Notre Dame, can provide
studentathletes with additional direct payments and/or benefits
over and above annual existing scholarships and all other benefits,
capped at $20.5 million per school for 2025–2026, increasing
~4% annually for the following ten years; however, the increase
will be reevaluated every three years based on increases in certain
sports-related revenue among the Conference Defendants and Notre
Dame.

Enforcement & Oversight

All D-I student-athletes must report to their school and/or the
“Designated Reporting Entity” (managed by Deloitte) any
and all third-party NIL contracts or payments with a total value of
$600 or more on a schedule to be determined by the Defendants.

The College Sports Commission (CSC), an independent regulatory
body established by the Power Five, is the central enforcement
authority for the Settlement’s new compensation model and will
oversee all enforcement of the Settlement terms including
“Revenue Sharing,” “Name, Image, and Likeness
Deals,” and “Roster Limits.” The CSC states that the
NCAA “remains responsible for enforcement of rules not created
in connection with the settlement.”

Retroactive Benefits Pool

Under the Settlement, a total of approximately $2.8 billion in
backdamages will be distributed over ten years (~$280 million per
year) to eligible D-I athletes for past NIL restrictions
(2016–2024). This consists of a $1.976 billion NIL fund plus
$600 million for pay-for-play claims. Approximately 90% of the
Settlement will be paid to former football and men’s basketball
players because the payout formula is based on historical media
revenue and licensing data, with the remaining funds reserved for
other men’s sports and women’s sports.

Roster & Scholarship Policies

All NCAA D-I athletic scholarship limits are eliminated;
instead, the NCAA may adopt D-I roster limits, capping the
total number of athletes who can participate on a team. The new
roster caps are largely modeled on existing scholarship limits.
This shift gives schools greater flexibility on how they can
allocate aid and compensation and not affect athletes who were
already enrolled or who had signed letters of intent before April
7, 2024—this ensures no current student-athlete loses a spot
due to the new limits during their eligibility. Each school must
submit its list of exempt/grandfathered athletes by July 6,
2025.

Still, Member Institutions will have the option of making
incremental athletic scholarships available to student-athletes
above the number currently permitted by NCAA D-I rules for a
particular sport, subject to the roster limits. However, the full
cost-of-attendance dollar value of any new or incremental athletic
scholarships—that were not previously permitted by NCAA D-I
rules—up to $2.5 million (the Athletic Scholarship Cap) will
count against the pool of funds each Member Institution may
allocate to student-athletes.

Title IX Objections on Appeal to the Ninth Circuit

Before approving the Settlement, Judge Wilken held a hearing on
April 7, 2025, where she addressed objections raised by several
female student-athletes. The objectors argued that the proposed
$2.8 billion in backpay would disproportionately benefit male
athletes—particularly those in football and men’s
basketball—due to historic and systemic disparities in media
exposure and revenue generation.

Judge Wilken rejected these Title IX objections, reasoning that
the instant antitrust case had nothing to do with Title IX, a
federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education
programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance.
While the court declined to consider Title IX arguments in the
context of this Settlement, Judge Wilken did leave the door open
for future Title IX lawsuits based on how schools make future
payments to athletes.

Almost immediately after Judge Wilken’s final judgment,
approximately twelve female athletes filed a notice of appeal to
the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the $2.8 billion settlement
violates Title IX based on inequalities in compensation. While
injunctive reform under the Settlement is already in effect, damage
payments are stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Impacts of the Settlement

Student-Athlete Transfers, Eligibility, and Poaching

On April 22, 2024, the NCAA adopted legislation removing limits
on the number of times an academically eligible student-athlete may
transfer during their collegiate career. This change allows
athletes to transfer multiple times without penalty, provided they
are in good academic standing.

This Settlement is expected to significantly increase transfer
activity. In particular, student-athletes at Ivy League
institutions and non–Power Five or non-NCAA schools may be
incentivized to transfer to schools that participate in
revenue-sharing, offer larger athletics budgets, and actively
support third-party NIL opportunities. With no threat of losing
eligibility, transferring becomes an attractive avenue for athletes
seeking both competitive and financial advancement.

However, transferring raises concerns about schools poaching
studentathletes who have already signed NIL contracts with other
programs. This exact issue was raised on June 20, 2025, when the
University of Wisconsin (UW) and its NIL collective filed a
complaint against the University of Miami (UM) over alleged
tortious interference with a two-year binding revenue-sharing
contract that was set to begin July 1, 2025. UW claims that UM
communicated with a UW defensive back, Xavier Lucas, who had not
entered the transfer portal, “knowingly inducing” him to
breach his contract with UW. The studentathlete had reportedly
requested to enter the portal, but UW refused, based on their
agreement.

This case is the first of its kind and may set a critical
precedent on whether schools can legally recruit student-athletes
already under binding revenue-sharing contracts tied to the
Settlement. The Big Ten is supporting UW with the lawsuit against
UM.

Questions on Employee Status

While the Settlement allows schools to directly pay their
athletes and share revenue, it does not redefine the
student-athletes as employees. However, student-athlete
compensation creates ambiguity regarding whether they are
“employees” under federal or state law, allowing
student-athletes to collect benefits and unionize. The question of
whether student-athletes are considered employees under
the Fair Labor Standards Act is currently being litigated in
the Third Circuit in Johnson v. NCAA. If a court
eventually does rule that student-athletes are employees, the
Settlement has provided that the NCAA or Power Five conferences may
modify or terminate their agreements, accordingly.

Potential Federal Legislation

There is currently no NIL federal legislation in place, but
prior to the Settlement, many state legislatures were actively
enacting NIL laws. Although the Settlement fundamentally reshapes
the national college sports landscape, it does not override or
preempt existing state laws. Instead, it operates alongside state
legislation, creating a layered legal environment where schools
must comply with both the Settlement terms and their state’s
NIL statutes. Where conflicts exist, states are prompted to revise
their laws to harmonize with the Settlement and avoid competitive
disadvantages in recruiting.

Because the Settlement does not have federal preemption power,
there is growing pressure for federal legislation. The NCAA has
asked Congress for legislation that would grant it an antitrust
exemption, preempt all state laws related to NIL, and restrict
student-athletes from being considered employees.

Congress is not alone in examining the impact the Settlement has
on college athletics, and the disparity it creates among sports and
athletes. President Donald Trump is reportedly considering an
executive order to regulate NIL deals in college athletics. He has
instructed White House aides to begin studying what an order would
look like. Other government officials, such as Rep. Michael
Baumgartner (R. WA.), may propose legislation to replace the NCAA
with a new body headed by a presidential appointee to ensure that
NIL funds and revenues are shared with schools and distributed
“equally among all student athletes of such
institutions.” This Bill, H.R. 2663, the Restore College
Sports Act, has been assigned to the House Committee on Education
and Workforce.

Conclusion

The Settlement represents a transformative moment in the legal,
financial, and regulatory framework of college athletics. It not
only compensates thousands of former student-athletes for years of
denied NIL revenue but also creates a forward-looking
revenue-sharing model that provides substantial compensation to
certain student-athletes. While the Settlement brings long-overdue
benefits, it also introduces a host of unresolved legal and policy
challenges, such as Title IX concerns, transfer/poaching disputes,
questions surrounding employment status, and conflicting state
legislation. As these issues continue to unfold, it will be
interesting to see how schools, athletes, and lawmakers respond to
this new era in college sports.

Footnotes

1. This consolidated litigation began as two separate
actions: (1) House v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal) and (2) Oliver v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, 4:20-cv-04527 (N.D.
Cal). ). The litigation was further consolidated with two similar
actions: (3) Hubbard v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, 4:23-cv-01593 (N.D. Cal) and (4) Carter v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, 23-cv-06325, (N.D.
Cal.).

2. Brandon v North Carolina Board of Education, et al,
24CV026975-910

3. 24CV026975-910 Complaint at page 20.

4. 2023 N.C. Sess. L. 133 Section 17. (a) (N.C. Gen Stat.
Section 115C-407.55(1)(h))

5. ATHL-008 (NIL Prohibition).

Originally Published by The NIL Institutional
Report

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.