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.

As soon as later this month, a landmark settlement in an NCAA antitrust case could be finalized, and schools, including Pitt, would dole out more than $20 million annually to players over the next decade. The change would go into effect on July 1.

But, with an athletics department in the red and uncertain federal funding for research — a mainstay in Pitt’s budget — the source of that money is murky.

Some schools around the country have already instituted higher ticket and concession prices for games, while others are adding onto student fees to help foot the bill. Preparation for the payments has also led to already-enrolled athletes being cut from teams, and recruits committing to schools without clarity on next steps come the fall.

Pitt declined to answer specific questions about a funding and distribution plan for the multimillion-dollar payments, where the money would stem from and how recruiting may have been altered for the upcoming school year.

Why are colleges going to pay athletes?

Historically, colleges have avoided having to pay student athletes, characterizing them as amateurs rather than professionals. Karen Weaver, the author of a forthcoming book on university leadership and athletics, said this was feasible for years until college sports began to rake in big bucks.

“The amount of money pouring in at every level … just became intolerable, so athletes and their attorneys started pushing back,” said Weaver, an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Enter a slate of lawsuits against the NCAA, which oversees athletics for more than a thousand colleges and universities. The $2.8 billion settlement could end the case of House v. NCAA, which was initially brought by a former college swimmer and evolved to include two other suits. 

Experts told PublicSource that the settlement, which will allow colleges to pay athletes, was a less financially damaging choice for the organization than letting the cases play out in court. 

However, colleges and universities in the Power Five conferences aren’t exactly in a prime position to help the NCAA cover the settlement cost, especially as they each prepare to find $20.5 million for their athletes.

Can Pitt afford this?

Revenue for most schools’ athletics departments doesn’t outpace expenses, including at Pitt.

According to financial disclosures submitted to the state, Pitt’s athletics department ended the 2023-24 school year with a $45 million deficit.

“The issue with college sports, as is true for most of our education, is we spend what we get and sometimes in college athletics, they spend more,” Weaver said. “So, more often than not, they’re running deficits.”

PublicSource reached out to Pitt with questions about the deficit and did not receive a response by publication time. 

The settlement’s potential finalization would also arrive at a time when Pitt is battling critical financial concerns. Federal research funding cuts prompted Pitt in March to institute a hiring freeze that will last until the end of June, at a minimum. Research grants and contracts accounted for 39% of the university’s revenue in 2024. 

“This is a real concern. The timing could not be worse,” Weaver said about the current higher education climate.

Solutions for finding the money range from cutting sports that aren’t generating enough revenue to acquiring loans through private equity, Weaver said. Despite the silence from administrators, she said with the settlement being potentially close to finalization, it’s likely that Pitt would have a plan or be close to one by now.

Would tuition increase?

One alum has been trying for months to figure that out. In February, Byron Fleck contacted university administrators requesting that the Board of Trustees add an agenda item to their next meeting. The San Jose-based lawyer attached a statement of support for a resolution that, if approved by the trustees, would promise that tuition, student fees and taxpayer money wouldn’t be used to pay Pitt’s athletes.

State law permits state-related universities, including Pitt, to use taxpayer money only to offset tuition costs for state residents. There have been no indications that the university plans to increase tuition or add student fees to pay athletes. Pitt did not answer a question about whether it intends to do so. 

Since 2021, tuition at Pitt’s main campus in Oakland has increased every year. Last year’s increase was 2% for in-state students and 4% for out-of-state students. The university’s budget for the next school year, when athlete payments would begin if the settlement is approved, won’t be finalized until July.

Pitt Chancellor Joan Gabel and Board Secretary Philip Bakken both confirmed that Fleck’s request and statement were relayed to the trustees, according to emails shared with PublicSource. After this, Fleck said he was told there would be no further communication regarding the request. The board met on May 8 and the resolution wasn’t mentioned.

When asked why the board didn’t acknowledge the request for a resolution vote, a Pitt spokesperson said, “The Board of Trustees, through the Office of the Secretary, did acknowledge Mr. Fleck’s feedback and request. We thanked him for his feedback and repeatedly indicated that his communication had been shared with the board.”

In the absence of a vote, Fleck took to contacting Gov. Josh Shapiro, State Education Secretary Carrie Rowe and state Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman and Minority Leader Jay Costa.

Costa, whose district includes Pitt’s Oakland campus and who serves on the Board of Trustees, reached out to the board to ask them to consider the resolution, according to an email from his district office director earlier this month.

Would players be paid equally?

The settlement will not detail which athletes are paid or how much, leaving the choice up to the individual schools. Most are expected to follow a plan that would see football and men’s basketball players receiving the bulk of the money since those sports tend to generate the most revenue.

Under that blueprint, football would get 75% of the funds, 15-20% would go to men’s basketball, 5-10% would go to women’s basketball and leftover money would be given to other sports. At Pitt, there is a slightly larger number of male athletes at 292 than female athletes at 235, according to the most recent federal data.   

Experts told PublicSource they are expecting legal challenges related to Title IX, particularly if schools follow the football-heavy formula.

Title IX requires schools to provide equal financial assistance opportunities to men and women athletes. Before former President Joe Biden left office in January, he issued guidance spelling this out for the distribution of name, image and likeness [NIL] payments. The Trump administration rescinded this on Feb. 12.

Pitt did not answer a question about whether parity between men’s and women’s sports would be a factor in how athletes get paid.

How does NIL factor into this?

Student athletes are currently able to profit from outside NIL deals, a change that the NCAA allowed in June 2021. The settlement will not limit their ability to earn extra money on top of payments from schools, but there will be more regulation around deals. Those worth $600 or more will have to be made public. 

Many players sign onto and are paid through school-specific NIL collectives, which are often organizations that accept donations to pay athletes for the likes of endorsements, social media posts, appearances and more.

Weaver called these collectives “loosely structured.” Pitt’s collective is Alliance 412 and was founded by alum Chris Bickell in 2022. Bickell, CEO of the Florida health tech company WellHive, donated $20 million to Pitt’s athletics department the previous year.

These collectives operate independently from the universities, but experts predict that many will be absorbed into athletics departments after the settlement is finalized.

Alliance 412 and the university’s department, though separate entities, already work in close collaboration. Last fall, Pitt football head coach Pat Narduzzi and Bickell decided to stop paying all players, instead compensating select ones.

“If you want sponsorships and want to be paid like a professional, you have to earn it,” Bickell said in an interview with Yahoo! Sports.

Could athletes unionize?

To Ohio University professor B. David Ridpath, there is only one clear path forward for Pitt once the settlement is finalized.

“It’s going to be difficult for them to be able to exist in any competitive balance with a Penn State, with a Notre Dame, with an Ohio State, unless there is some type of collective bargaining and unionization with the athletes, because then … you could level out the playing field a little bit more,” he said.

Ridpath, whose research focuses on sports governance in intercollegiate athletics, said unionizing would allow for salary caps and even spending, in part by eliminating recruiting costs. It would also ensure Title IX requirements are met, he said.  

Student athletes have never been considered employees of the universities they play for, but receiving payment as part of the settlement’s conditions would call their status into question. Ridpath expects the settlement will open the door for lawsuits addressing this.

Details in the settlement are still being hammered out between the NCAA and athletes represented in the case, despite it having preliminary approval. If an agreement isn’t reached, the case goes to trial, and the financial blowback for the NCAA and its member schools could skyrocket.

Weaver isn’t sure what will happen, while Ridpath is more certain.

“I tend to think the settlement is going to get approved, but also I think, predict and rightly predict, that’s just the beginning,” he said.

Maddy Franklin reports on higher ed for PublicSource, in partnership with Open Campus, and can be reached at madison@publicsource.org.

This story was fact-checked by Ayla Saeed.

The road to Oklahoma City kicks off on Friday. Stay tuned all weekend as Softball America updates scores and times throughout the weekend.

Softball America Regional Coverage:

Ranking all 16 College Softball Regionals in terms of toughness
2025 College Softball Regional Superlatives
Five unseeded college softball teams that can make the Women’s College World Series
Softball America Composite Analytics: NCAA Regionals
Every NCAA Tournament Team’s hottest hitter
1 Mid-Major Player to Know from Each Regional
The 10 most intriguing College Softball Super Regional pairings
2025 Softball America Bracket Challenge
Regional Discussion Board
Scores Page

Link