The Last Days of Amateur College Sports: The Impacts of House v. NCAA on Collegiate Athletics

By Raina Fan '26

---

Whether college athletes should be paid for their revenue-generating performances has been at the center of a legal battle for decades, as the professional identity of student-athletes continues to be debated and the NCAA’s antitrust status challenged. In June 2025, House v. NCAA – a class action case between student-athletes and the NCAA – was officially settled. This historic ruling marks a shift in college athletics, moving away from an amateur model toward one that allows athletes to be compensated for their contributions.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), founded in 1906, was created to “regulate the rules of college sports and protect young athletes.” (1) To become a ruling body of intercollegiate athletes, the NCAA established a model based on a business cartel, which is “an organization of firms that makes agreements concerning such matters as prices, outputs, market areas, the use and construction of productive capacity and advertising expenditures.” (2) In practice, the NCAA created and enforced the eligibility, financial, academic and structural regulations for the participating schools and their athletes. However, its dominant control in the market has drawn constant legal disputes, especially in recent years, particularly under the Sherman Antitrust Act, which is the federal statute that prohibits activities that restrict interstate commerce and competition in the marketplace. (3) To avoid violation of the Sherman Act, the NCAA has historically characterized itself as an academic entity rather than a commercial one, since Section 1 of the Sherman Act is intended to apply only if the organization is commercial.

Over time, the growth of high-profit network partnerships expanded the reach of collegiate sports. More schools began surpassing $100 million in annual revenue, yet athletes themselves remained restricted from profiting off their name, image, and likeness (NIL). In 2015, O’Bannon v. NCAA marked a legal turning point as the student athletes successfully challenged the NCAA’s usage of their NIL in video games and broadcasts without compensation. (4) The court ruled that the NCAA’s amateurism rule violated the Sherman Act by restricting athletes from profiting off their NIL. Similarly, in Pavia v. NCAA, the court concluded that the NIL compensation transformed college sports into a commercial enterprise, thereby triggering potential violations of antitrust regulations. (5) These significant rulings officially opened up the door for NIL compensation for collegiate athletes. They placed pressure on the NCAA to reform its amateurism rules, which have long restricted student athletes from receiving payment for their media appearances and endorsements. (6)

In the wake of NIL policy changes, collectives – groups that represent athletes and secure sponsorships from external organizations – have emerged as an alternative pathway for schools. NIL collectives are expected to generate, on average, almost $10 million annually per Power 5 school in compensation to student athletes. (7) These collectives allow schools to attract top recruits without paying directly from their athletic budgets, while athletes gain a head start in building their brands beyond sports. This transformation has launched stars like Arch Manning, Cooper Flagg, and Flau’jae Johnson into unprecedented earning potential. Yet, the shift has also introduced new challenges, continuing conversations around labor, contracts, and the income disparity among athletes.

The lack of a federal NIL policy has left states entitled to regulate this development independently. California became a leader in this change by passing the “Fair Pay to Play Act” in 2019, which allowed student-athletes to sign endorsement and sponsorship deals while retaining their eligibility. (8) Florida, a major player in the NCAA landscape with numerous large universities and a deep high school talent pool, has also been a key state in the NIL evolution. Florida’s NIL regulations have been significantly reformed since its initial statutes: (Fla. Stat. § 1006.74(1)(a), (j) (2021)). While the 2021 statutes recognized student athletes right to profit off of their NIL, it imposed restrictions for “such compensation may not be provided in exchange for athletic performance or attendance at a particular institution and may only be provided by a third party unaffiliated with the intercollegiate athlete’s postsecondary educational institution” and the duration of the contract “may not extend beyond her or his participation in an athletic program at a postsecondary educational institution.”(9) It wasn’t until 2024, when the updated statute Fla. Stat. § 1006.74(1)(a), (j) (2024) was enacted, and these restrictions were lifted. The revised law allowed more flexibility for schools in support of their athletes in the competitive NIL market. The focus of the statute shifted away from creating regulations on compensation, but rather enforcing the implementation of educational workshops to ensure athletes are developing the skillset for financial literacy in managing their new sources of income.

House v. NCAA

The most recent and significant development is the House v. NCAA settlement, which received final approval from Judge Claudia Wilken on June 6, 2025. This historic settlement resolves three separate antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA and marks a new turning point for collegiate athletics, introducing several critical developments: (10)

1. For the first time, colleges and universities are allowed to directly share revenue with student-athletes. A new annual cap is established, allowing schools to allocate up to $20.5 million per year to pay athletes. This cap is predicted to rise 4% annually.

2. As compensation, the NCAA will pay nearly $2.8 billion in back damages to the class of Division I athletes who competed between 2016 until now under the NCAA. (11)

3. The settlement also replaces sport-specific scholarship limits with roster limits for Division I programs. This change is expected to increase the number of scholarships available. To protect against the roster limit, the NCAA also creates a new category of athletes labeled as designated student-athletes, which are athletes that were removed from the roster, or would've been removed, for the 2025-26 academic year, due to the implementation of roster limits. As a designated student-athlete, they can continue to compete for the remainder of their eligibility and are exempt from the roster limits. (12)

NCAA schools have recently surpassed the June 30 deadline to indicate whether they intend to opt into the settlement agreement for the 2025-26 academic year.

Impacts and Concerns

Despite the growth in opportunities for collegiate athletes, this new policy change also introduces significant challenges and potential adverse impacts, particularly concerning equity and fairness across sports in income distribution. For instance, the direct payments have raised potential Title IX concerns. Title IX is a federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funding. (13) The new revenue-sharing model, which allows schools to allocate money based on revenue, is expected to disproportionately benefit high-revenue men’s sports such as football and basketball. This could widen the existing disparities in resources, opportunities, and compensation between male and female athletic programs, a concern that already exists. (14)

On the same note, the new financial model is also likely to create an uneven hierarchy in athlete compensation. While star players in football and men's basketball stand to earn substantial amounts, athletes in less revenue-generating sports, in both men's and women's sports, may receive minimal or no direct payments from their institutions. The White House Executive Order “Saving College Sports” covers the issue: “by the 2025 season, football players at one university will reportedly be paid $35-40 million, with revenue-sharing included… absent guardrails to … ensure a reasonable, balanced use of resources across collegiate athletic programs that preserves their educational and developmental benefits, many college sports will soon cease to exist.” (15) This could lead to a widening gap in athlete income and potentially impact the funding and survival of non-revenue sports, as resources are concentrated on those generating the most money. For instance, sports like track and field, swimming, diving, and rowing, all rely on deep rosters of athletes, many of whom are competing not only on the collegiate level but also internationally, in order to qualify for events such as the Olympics. Previous options like red-shirting, athletes not competing for a year in order to train without counting towards their years of eligibility, are no longer a financially viable option for schools. As institutions make crucial decisions on money allocation, non-revenue-generating sports and athletes will be at high risk of losing funding as well as opportunities. (16)

Lastly, proposal No. 2025-12 in the NCAA Bylaw will require athletes to disclose NIL deals over $600 to a new entity, the College Sports Commission (CSC). (17) The CSC will have the right to vet deals for its commercial objective, in response to booster’s direct payments, and determine the fair market value of deals. By reporting the contracts, the athletes could potentially violate the non-disclosure agreements between athletes and brand deals. The extent of CSC’s power has yet to be determined, and this new governance may allow the NCAA to retain control over athletes’ earning potential.

Questions About the Future

The transformation of college athletics raises fundamental questions about the nature of student-athlete relationships with their respective colleges and the financial sustainability of the competitive collegiate sports market. The House v. NCAA settlement, while allowing direct payments, does not explicitly define athletes as employees, so this ongoing debate about the professional nature of collegiate athletes remains unresolved. This classification would have unlocked further investigations on the implications for unionization, collective bargaining, and the application of labor laws.

Additionally, a significant concern arises whether all schools, particularly those outside the Power Four conferences, will be able to afford paying athletes like employees. The new revenue-sharing cap, while substantial, may not be enough for all institutions to remain competitive in recruiting and retaining top talent, potentially creating a wider divide between athletic programs.

As this lengthy dispute continues to raise discussions in stadiums, courtrooms, and boardrooms. The highly anticipated 2025-2026 season will inevitably go down as a defining chapter in the history of collegiate athletics.

Endnotes

1. NCAA, “History,” accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/4/history.aspx.

2. James V. Koch, “A Troubled Cartel: The NCAA,” Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke University School of Law), accessed August 12, 2025, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3399&context=lcp.

3. Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7 (1890).

4. O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 14-16601 (9th Cir. 2015), Justia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/14-16601/14-16601-2015-09-30.html.

5. Joe Layzell and Kevin Walton, “The NCAA’s Continued Antitrust Battles,” Law Offices of Snell & Wilmer (blog post), December 26, 2024, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.swlaw.com/publication/the-ncaas-continued-antitrust-battles/.

6. NCSA College Recruiting, “NCAA Amateurism Rules,” accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ncsasports.org/ncaa-eligibility-center/amateurism-rules.

7. NIL-NCAA.com, “NIL Collectives – NCAA Revenue Sharing & NIL Estimates,” accessed August 12, 2025, https://nil-ncaa.com/collectives.

8. USC Gould School of Law (Law for Business), “The Fair Pay to Play Act and How California Led the Way to College Athlete Pay Reform and the Development of NIL,” accessed August 12, 2025, https://lawforbusiness.usc.edu/the-fair-pay-to-pay-act-and-how-california-led-the-way-to-college-athlete-pay-reform-and-the-development-of-nil/.

9. Fla. Stat. § 1006.74 (2021), https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2021/1006.74.

10. Dan Murphy, “Judge Grants Final Approval in House v. NCAA Settlement,” ESPN, July 24, 2025, https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/45467505/judge-grants-final-approval-house-v-ncaa-settlement.

11. Athletes.org, “Athletes.org Acknowledges Approval of House v. NCAA Settlement as a Necessary First Step in New Era of College Athletics,” accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.athletes.org/news/athletes-org-acknowledges-approval-of-house-v-ncaa-settlement-as-a-necessary-first-step-in-new-era-of-college-athletics/.

12. NCAA, “DI Board of Directors Formally Adopts Changes to Roster Limits,” June 23, 2025, https://www.ncaa.org/news/2025/6/23/media-center-di-board-of-directors-formally-adopts-changes-to-roster-limits.aspx.

13. U.S. Department of Education, “Title IX and Sex Discrimination,” accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/title-ix-and-sex-discrimination.

14. “Understanding Gender Disparities in College Athletics,” GameChange Blog, December 13, 2024, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.gogamechange.com/blog/gender-disparities-in-college-athletics.

15. The White House, “Saving College Sports,” Presidential Action, July 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/saving-college-sports/.

16. Chelsea Ale, “Collateral Damage: The NCAA Settlement Puts Olympic and Non-Revenue Sports on the Brink,” Sports Business Journal, June 30, 2025, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/06/30/collateral-damage-the-ncaa-settlement-puts-olympic-and-non-revenue-sports-on-the-brink/.

17. House v. NCAA: Confidentiality Implications for Student Athlete NIL Deals, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, June 9, 2025, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.debevoise.com/insights/publications/2025/06/house‑v‑ncaa‑confidentiality‑implications‑for.