The House v. NCAA settlement has placed the world of college sports in an impractical waiting period.

The proposed date pending approval is July 1—the same day that marks the start of the 2025-26 athletic fiscal calendar.

But there’s not a clear direction for what the enforcement entity will be or look like.

Yet, many in the college football world expected that decision to come last week. There’s frankly no guarantee Judge Claudia Wilken will approve the terms as they stand with her noted problems involving roster limits.

States are enacting laws that directly support schools’ rights to ignore the limits imposed on NIL by the salary cap and collective restrictions. Amidst that, the Power Four is attempting to wrangle members into signing a document forcing adherence.

Has this chaos truly addressed the core issues with NIL and college sports?

Justin Giangrande, CEO and founder of NETWORK, a sports marketing and management agency, spoke exclusively with NIL Daily on SI about the settlement’s impact on college sports at every level and what is really at the heart of the matter.

It is evident that a power vacuum has emerged due to the NCAA effectively withdrawing from its role in enforcing college amateurism, which has changed the responsibilities of individuals involved in the sport in unexpected ways. 

“All of these athletic directors are meant to be like powerful CEOs now, but that’s not how they were built,” Giangrande said. “Then each school has a different power dynamic: President, magistrate AD. Who is making the decisions?”

The lack of federal legislation or the implementation of the revenue-sharing era through the settlement has led to that vacuum causing power struggles at every level: the conferences with the NCAA, state-by-state laws that are trying to catch an advantage. 

“Life is about momentum,” Giangrande continued. “We’ve learned through this, you give people time and thought to pick you apart, and they will. I think the toughest thing in this environment is that every school has an agenda and can decide how they want to move.” 

The NIL situation has reverted to square one.

There are schools that will adhere strictly to the cap and NIL clearinghouse guidelines. It would feel foolish to assume that others with powerful boosters won’t find ways to circumvent those restrictions in chasing a championship. 

The Power Four conferences are actively attempting to prevent this by coercing schools into signing an agreement that explicitly forbids such actions. 

No one wants to treat the athletes like employees in all of this, despite making a system that dictates their earning potential and market value with limitations on earnings paid directly by schools. 

No one has even bothered to include the athletes in any discussions of this.

Giangrande believes that the settlement and revenue-sharing is a way to skirt that and prolong this untenable world of non-employment.

“When you do an endorsement deal with a pro player, that brand chooses to pay that player based not only on what he’s currently worth but also on if they think that he’s going to have a good career; they’re projecting his upside,” Giangrande said. “If I invest in, let’s say, a wide receiver who was drafted in the second round, but I think he’s going to be really good, and I do an endorsement deal with him, I’m taking a chance and hoping that I catch upside, that he really becomes good. So how do you determine fair market value? I think that’s a very tough stance to have.” 

As Giangrande aptly and humorously put it, the state of college football reads more like Yellowstone meets Succession. 

It’s a state with no clear end date, despite July 1 feeling all but imminent.

Will schools even follow it if it receives approval and is it effective in addressing the fundamental issues within the sport?

With athletes left out of the conversation, it’s hard to feel like this is the solution best for them and not one created out of a concern to gain back control from players.