U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granting final approval of the House settlement expands opportunities for college athletes to be paid—and makes suing the NCAA to remain eligible all the more enticing to seasoned athletes who want to prolong their collegiate experience.
Among other features, the settlement permits schools to share with athletes 22% of the Power Five schools’ average athletic revenues each year. The percentage is capped at 22% in part to promote competitive balance, meaning no college can function like the college sports versions of the New York Mets or Los Angeles Dodgers and carry large (de facto) payrolls.
For the 2025-26 academic year, the expected share will be about $20.5 million and gradually climb to around $33 million by 2034-25. Colleges will have discretion to allocate the funding as they wish. Many schools are expected to allocate most of the funding to football players, with basketball players also expected to get a sizable share. Allocations that pay male athletes more than female athletes could run afoul of Title IX, although that issue remains to be determined.
As Wilken explained in her 76-page order, approximately $1.6 billion in new compensation for college athletes is expected through revenue sharing in the first year. This money for athletes is in addition to athletic scholarships that cover tuition, room, board, books, meal plans and other benefits, plus any NIL deals.
In short, the new world for college sports is more lucrative for some athletes, especially those who play certain sports at power conference schools.
Enter the new wave of litigation involving athletes who have exhausted their NCAA eligibility but who don’t want to quit playing.
These athletes have challenged several NCAA eligibility rules, but the primary assertion is that the NCAA limiting eligibility to four seasons in five years runs afoul of antitrust law. These athletes seek NIL deals, which if the athletes are ineligible would be lost since their marketability is tied to playing for a college team, as they seek further refinement as pro prospects who want to enter the NFL or NBA. Through graduate programs, these athletes could remain enrolled students at a university, at least in theory, for many years.
Vanderbilt quarterback and former junior college transfer Diego Pavia began this wave with his thus far successful case against the NCAA. Other plaintiff athletes include football players Nyzier Fourqurean, Jett Elad and Cortez Braham Jr. and baseball players Alberto Osuna, Dylan Goldstein, Trey Ciulla-Hall and basketball players Zakai Zeigler and Ante Brzovic. They have experienced mixed results as courts in different jurisdictions—each with different legal precedents—weigh dueling arguments.
The basic assertion in favor of letting athletes keep playing is that limiting eligibility restrains members of a labor market. These athletes would otherwise be offered the chance by schools to keep playing and some would be offered NIL deals, some worth millions.
Now those same athletes lose out on something else: potential shares of revenue.
This loss increases the economic harm athletes experience when told their college athlete years have come to an end. Keep in mind, these athletes are typically approaching their mid-20s, perhaps their peak athletic years. They are also seasoned athletes, with know-how and smarts that coaches would value over what 18-year-olds straight out of high school tend to offer. Many of these athletes have also become familiar to college sports fans and thus have NIL value.
Zeigler’s case is especially instructive. He played four seasons in four years at the University Tennessee and was a star on the court in addition to earning academic honors on his way to graduating last month. But Zeigler’s only 5-foot-9 and is thus not regarded as an NBA prospect. He seemingly has the athletic prowess and intellectual skills to thrive as a graduate student basketball player. Especially given his name recognition and popularity among Vols fans, Zeigler contends he could earn as much as $4 million in NIL deals if he could play what would be his fifth season in five years.
With the House settlement approved, don’t be surprised if Zeigler’s attorneys soon refer to the loss of revenue share as additional evidence their client is harmed by denial of eligibility.
College sports, at least at power conference schools, now more closely reassembles pro sports. While college athletes are not recognized as employees, some are economic actors in that they can land NIL deals and revenue shares. Antitrust law regulates the marketplace to ensure there is meaningful economic competition–including competition among colleges for athletes. This area of law is arguably a more suitable fit for NCAA eligibility cases with revenue sharing now a feature of college sports.
Don’t discount the NCAA’s legal arguments, however. The NCAA has stressed that courts have traditionally regarded college athlete eligibility matters as outside the scope of antitrust law. That reflects, in part, the fact that unlike pro athletes, college athletes are full-time students who must advance toward a degree. Eligibility rules are used to align athletic participation with these academic objectives.
Eligibility rules also help to favorably distinguish college sports from minor league sports. A team in the UFL or G League might beat the best college football and best college basketball teams in matchups, but the college teams are still much more popular—and more likely to command higher TV ratings and ticket and apparel sales—because they are college teams. If college sports morph into inferior versions of the NFL, NBA, WNBA, MLB and other major pro leagues, college teams run the risk of resembling minor league squads that would generate much less revenue. A decline in revenue would, of course, hurt college, but it would also hurt college athletes, especially now that they have a direct stake in revenue calculations.
In a statement of interest filed last week, the U.S. Department of Justice asserts that while antitrust law ought to apply, there are compelling arguments that eligibility rules comply with antitrust law. The DOJ cited academic objectives and boosting consumer appeal of college sports as justifications for eligibility rules.
One thing is for sure: The House settlement will not only change college sports, it will also change college sports litigation.
