NCAA v. House: The Billion Dollar NIL Case That Will Reshape College Sports

June 12, 2025 - Ashley Long
By: Ashley Long and Collin Keefer (2025 Summer Law Clerk, 2L at University of South Carolina School of Law)

College sports is on the verge of a historic shift that will redefine how student-athletes are compensated for the value they bring to their institutions. At the center of this transformation is House v. NCAA, a federal antitrust lawsuit that led to the largest settlement in NCAA history. Judge Claudia Wilken officially approved the $2.8 billion settlement on June 6, 2025, opening the door to both retroactive compensation and direct revenue sharing between schools and student-athletes.
House v. NCAA was initially filed by former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, joined by TCU basketball player Sedona Prince and former Illinois football player Tymir Oliver. The plaintiffs argued that the NCAA and its member institutions unlawfully prevented student-athletes from earning NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) compensation prior to the 2021 rule change. They contend that thousands of athletes who competed between 2016 and 2021 lost out on what would have been lawful endorsement, appearance, and social media opportunities and should be paid damages for that lost income.
 
But the lawsuit doesn’t just focus on backpay. What makes House groundbreaking is that the plaintiffs also advocated to classify broadcast and media rights revenue as a form of NIL to enable revenue sharing between schools and athletes moving forward.
 
With final approval now secured, schools will be able to begin sharing a portion of athletics-generated revenue with their athletes under a capped model beginning in the 2025–2026 academic year.
 
The initial cap is set at $20.5 million per school, increasing incrementally over the next ten years. While each institution may structure payments differently, most are expected to follow a distribution model roughly aligned with the sports generating the bulk of revenue:
 
  • 75% of revenue allocated to football athletes
  • 15% to men’s basketball
  • 5% to women’s basketball
  • 5% to all other sports
Beyond financial compensation, the approved settlement includes structural changes that will reshape how NIL and team operations are managed:
 
  • NIL Clearinghouse: Deloitte will run a national clearinghouse to vet NIL deals valued over $600. Deals that cross the line into “pay-for-play” will be rejected.
  • Roster Management: Scholarship limits will be removed, but roster caps will be introduced, a move that could disproportionately impact walk-ons and athletes on partial aid.
  • No Employment Designation: The settlement sidesteps the question of whether student-athletes should be classified as employees or afforded the right to unionize or collectively bargain. It also leaves existing transfer rules unchanged.
The model may benefit some schools more than others. For example, basketball-only schools like Gonzaga, which do not field football teams, would not have to divide revenue with another high-revenue sport. On the other hand, large football programs will need to make hard choices about distributing resources across the entire athletic department. Some power conference schools are even contemplating a mode that only compensates only six sports. Additionally, there is concern over how this model will affect Olympic and non-revenue sports, which may see only a small slice of shared revenue unless schools take a more balanced approach.

With final approval now behind us, revenue sharing is set to begin as early as July 1, 2025. Between now and then, schools, athletic departments, collectives, and legal counsels are preparing for a future in which direct athlete compensation becomes not just permissible but standard.

For questions or more information on this topic, please contact Ashley Long.