A New Era, but Unfinished Business: Impacts of House vs. NCAA
The world of college athletics stands on the brink of unprecedented change. The House vs. NCAA settlement, if finalized, will shatter the century-old amateurism model, enabling direct athlete compensation and introducing revenue sharing that could reach $20.5 million per school annually, plus $2.8 billion in back-pay damages to athletes. This will not be a neat conclusion but rather a turbulent start of a new era – one fraught with legal, practical, and ethical challenges that will reshape the future of college sports.
Gender Equity in the Balance: Title IX Implications
Perhaps the most consequential and uncertain impact is on gender equity. The bulk of settlement funds are expected to flow to men’s football and basketball, raising significant Title IX questions about whether female athletes will receive fair treatment. Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in education programs and requires institutions to provide equal athletic opportunity, regardless of sex. Equal opportunity in athletic programs is addressed in three categories:
The benefits, opportunities, and treatment given to male and female athletic teams;
The athletic financial assistance, including athletic scholarships, that is awarded to student athletes; and
An institution’s accommodation of the athletic interests and abilities of its students.
Although the settlement releases Title IX claims related to the distribution of the Gross Settlement Fund, it does not shield the NCAA or its schools from future lawsuits if disparities persist. With federal guidance on how NIL compensation interacts with Title IX shifting, gender equity in college sports compensation remains a legal minefield. The debate begins with the issue of whether distributions from an institution to an athlete for NIL rights are classified as financial assistance.
A Patchwork Challenge: Competing State Legislation
Another major unresolved issue is the growing patchwork of state laws around NIL rights. The House settlement does not preempt or resolve these competing state statutes, and this is quickly becoming a flashpoint. States are increasingly acting on their own, sometimes bypassing the NCAA altogether. Just one example is Georgia’s joining Virginia in passing legislation last year that allows schools to pay athletes directly for their NIL rights – without fear of NCAA retribution, regardless of whether the federal settlement is finalized. This autonomy threatens to create a fractured landscape where athletes in some states enjoy far greater rights and compensation than others, undermining the very idea of a level playing field in college sports. Without federal intervention or clear NCAA authority, the risk of legal confusion, recruiting imbalances, and further litigation will only grow.
Athletes or Employees? The Status Question Remains
The settlement also leaves unresolved the intensifying debate over whether college athletes should be classified as employees. The idea that member schools and athletes should be treated as an employer-employee relationship has gained traction. Momentum built last year when the Dartmouth men’s basketball team voted to unionize, following a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional director’s finding that college athletes are employees under the National Labor Relations Act. But that momentum stalled when the NLRB General Counsel rescinded the prior guidance, leaving the legal status of college athletes in limbo once again. The employer-employee question remains central – and unsettled.
Compensation: How Do We Value Athletes?
Athlete valuation remains one of the biggest unanswered questions. While sports like football may drive the bulk of revenue, the settlement offers no framework to assess individual market value, leaving standout athletes like LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne, who has publicly said she’s undervalued, without clear answers. In some cases, athletes in lower-revenue sports may bring more visibility and brand value than their football counterparts.
What, then, might a fair model look like? It could blend base salaries, performance bonuses, and revenue-sharing, while recognizing the student aspect of a student-athlete’s identity. Compensation should support both athletic contributions and academic progress, encouraging a balanced approach to college life.
Importantly, this model would need to reflect differences across sports, factoring in revenue generation, injury risk, and competitive demands. High-revenue might command larger compensation pools, while non-revenue sports could be structured around guaranteed base pay and more modest incentives.
As the settlement nears finalization, one thing is clear: the settlement is not an end, but the beginning of a new era in college sports – one that promises sweeping change but leaves many questions unresolved.
