Professor Steven Bank on college soccer’s future in the wake of the House v. NCAA settlement

With the “House v. NCAA” settlement sparking uncertainty about the future of college soccer, we’re checking in with Steven Bank, Professor of Business Law at the UCLA School of Law. Bank is also an avid soccer fan and has been involved in the game at many levels: player, youth coach, referee, club administrator and soccer dad.

His UCLA School of Law courses include “International and Comparative Sports Law” and “Law, Lawyering, and the Beautiful Game.”

SOCCER AMERICA: The “House v. NCAA” settlement stipulates that the NCAA will pay nearly $2.8 billion to former college athletes who were denied NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) opportunities before July 2021. Will any of that go to soccer players?

STEVEN BANK: The short answer is that most soccer players will receive very little. The vast majority of the damages settlement is earmarked for specific injuries to football and basketball players relating to not receiving compensation for video game or broadcast revenue.

Some soccer players who received third-party NIL payments after they were permitted and also played before they were permitted may be eligible for a lost opportunities fund, but most soccer players are likely only eligible for the 5% of the $600 million additional compensation fund part of the settlement that is earmarked for participants in DI sports other than football or basketball and only if they received a partial or full scholarship.

Depending upon the number of participants in all these other sports and the number of claims filed, the amount the average individual soccer player might receive isn’t going to be more than a couple of hundred dollars and it could be substantially less.

Moreover, the damage settlement is currently under appeal on the grounds that it constitutes gender discrimination under Title IX for allocating the overwhelming amount of the funds to participants in male sports. So, right now, back-pay damages are paused and the whole allocation formula could change.

SA: Going forward, the settlement allows schools to directly pay athletes, to share up to $20.5 million per school per year with players starting 2025-26. How will this impact men’s and women’s soccer? Are only football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball players going to receive compensation from their schools?

STEVEN BANK: Schools are permitted to decide how they allocate the funds and that is likely going to evolve over time.

In theory, a school could allocate the money equally among all athletes, but in practice, they will probably allocate most to football and basketball and a few other popular and successful sports on their campus and a small amount would be left for the other sports. 

Purdue, for example, announced that $300,000 would be set-aside for non-revenue sports to retain or recruit high-level athletes and the remainder would go to football, men’s and women’s basketball, and volleyball. Kansas announced that it was including women’s soccer among seven sports that would receive the vast majority of the revenue share.  I expect that there will be other schools that will elevate their women’s soccer team to that group too because of their success and popularity and to equalize the payments between men’s and women’s sports. 

SA: The NCAA will no longer maintain sport-specific scholarship limits. Will that decrease scholarships available in men’s soccer? Women’s soccer?