The House v. NCAA settlement was finally approved. What’s next?

For centuries, universities across the US have been collecting money from students. But now the shoe cleat is on the other foot.

On Friday, a federal judge approved a landmark settlement that allows schools to directly pay players for the first time in NCAA history starting July 1, in a move that officially redefines the financial landscape of college athletics.

Here’s the playbook

The decade-long House v. NCAA settlement essentially allows athletes to receive a cut of billions of dollars worth of broadcast revenue generated by college sports—though they aren’t officially classified as employees.

• Moving forward, each school can pay athletes up to 22% of the average Power Five school’s athletic revenues each year, with full discretion over how the funds are distributed.
• This annual cap, enforced by the newly created College Sports Commission (CSC), is expected to start at ~$20.5 million in 2025-26 and increase every year during the deal.
• The new revenue payments are on top of scholarships and other benefits student athletes already receive.
• Additionally, the NCAA will pay ~$2.8 billion in back damages over the next 10 years to athletes who competed in college at any time from 2016 through present day.

NIL—reduced to nil?

The settlement also involves new rules designed to limit the influence of boosters and NIL collectives. Starting this summer, any endorsement deal between a booster/NIL collective and an athlete that’s worth $600+ will be vetted by a CSC clearinghouse to ensure it’s for a "valid business purpose," rather than a “pay-for-play” incentive.

But…Many analysts and college sports insiders reportedly have doubts about whether the new rules governing boosters and NIL collectives will be effective at protecting competitive balance. Some believe athletes at the NCAA's richest schools will continue to receive rapidly increasing paychecks, while others believe the rule will spur new lawsuits from NIL backers.

Looking ahead: Expect more lawsuits to clear up items left unanswered by the settlement, including whether athletes should be considered employees and whether NCAA rules allowing just four years of eligibility are legal.

📊 Flash poll: What are your personal feelings regarding the House v. NCAA settlement?

• Approve
• Disapprove
• Unsure/other