Motion to Disrupt Vol. 2

Putting the House Settlement into Practice

OPENING STATEMENTS

Last Friday, the NCAA and power conferences released a Q&A for member schools outlining key details of the House settlement and forthcoming revenue-sharing model. While it doesn’t introduce groundbreaking new information, it offers much-needed clarity as schools prepare for this next chapter in college sports.

Much like the early days of Title IX, where a patchwork of regulatory Q&As shaped practical enforcement, this document is poised to become a foundational reference – informing institutional decisions and setting precedent in the absence of formal legislation or judicial rulings. And as with Title IX, it’s likely just the beginning: more Q&As and guidance documents will be needed from governing and legal bodies to clarify unresolved issues and anticipate new legal challenges.

As I read through the 36-page document this week, several elements stood out:

1) Contractual Buyouts and Revenue-Share Caps in Transfers

Any contractual buyout paid by a receiving institution for a transferring athlete counts against that school’s annual revenue-share cap. The original institution, however, cannot increase its own cap by the amount received. For example, if Texas A&M pays a $100,000 buyout to Florida State, that amount counts against Texas A&M’s benefits cap, but Florida State’s cap remains unchanged.

This rule has significant legal implications for compliance and financial planning. It prevents schools from circumventing the cap through creative transfer arrangements and ensures the cap functions as a true ceiling on athlete compensation. From an antitrust perspective, this uniform application of the cap may help the NCAA defend against future claims of collusion or restraint of trade, as it demonstrates a transparent and uniformly applied rule. However, disputes could arise over the valuation of buyouts and the timing of their application, potentially leading to litigation or arbitration between institutions or with athletes.

2) Roster Management and Injury Replacement

Players with season-ending injuries cannot be replaced mid-season, though they may qualify for a roster exemption the following year and continue receiving benefits. This seeks to balance competitive integrity and athlete welfare.

It may protect schools from disability or discrimination claims by ensuring benefits aren't abruptly cut. Still, it could be challenged if athletes claim exclusion from benefits constitutes unfair treatment, especially if injury status is contested. Institutions must carefully follow roster rules to avoid NCAA sanctions or breach-of-contract claims.

3) Academic Eligibility as a Condition for Compensation

Student-athletes who fail to meet academic progress requirements will lose eligibility for payments or benefits, determined by their school’s certifying authority.

This reinforces the student-athlete model and may shield institutions from claims that athletes are treated purely as employees. However, this rule could face contract challenges – if compensation was promised regardless of academic standing – or disability law challenges if ineligibility stems from a documented disability. The school-based determination process also raises potential due process concerns.

4) Definition and Regulation of “Associated Entities” in NIL Clearinghouse

Public companies are considered “associated entities” if they primarily support a school’s athletics program or create NIL opportunities solely for its athletes. This expands NCAA oversight, curbing third-party workarounds and creating a clearer compliance structure for schools and businesses.

Still, the definition’s breadth may be contested by companies arguing their work isn’t sufficiently tied to a single institution, raising questions of regulatory overreach.

5) Timing and Nature of NIL-Revenue Share Offers to High School Prospects

Schools may begin formally offering NIL-revenue share deals to high school prospects on August 1 of their senior year, but cannot finalize those agreements until standard signing periods.

This timeline helps prevent premature commitments and formalizes recruiting timelines. But it may face legal scrutiny if viewed as limiting market opportunities or if disputes arise over verbal offers made before signing periods.

Title IX Considerations

Crucially, the Q&A does not clarify how Title IX applies to revenue-sharing. It’s unclear whether payments will be classified as “athletic financial aid” or another benefit category, each with different gender equity implications.

What I suspect this will initiate is another set of guidance or Q&As that schools, and likely the NCAA and Department of Education, will need to address in the coming months:

• Are revenue-sharing payments considered “athletic financial aid” subject to Title IX? If so, how must schools structure payments to avoid gender-based disparities?

• Should compensation reflect participation rates, roster sizes, or some other metric?

• What responsibilities do schools have when most NIL revenue comes from external sources?

• What documentation and rationale will satisfy OCR in the event of an investigation or lawsuit?

• How should schools adjust if new guidance or court rulings shift Title IX interpretations?

For now, schools must interpret Title IX themselves. At Ohio State, for example, AD Ross Bjork said the school will allocate $18M in NIL payments across football, men’s and women’s basketball, and women’s volleyball, with another $2.5M supporting 91 new scholarships.

Final Thoughts

While the Q&A offers critical guidance, it leaves major legal questions unresolved, particularly around Title IX and athlete employment. Until courts or federal agencies weigh in, schools face legal risk and must proceed with caution, transparency, and consistent legal counsel.

EXHIBIT A

This week, UL-Monroe cut its tennis program and Washington State dropped the field portion of its track team, bringing the post-House settlement total to 30+ Division I Olympic sports programs cut. More are likely on the way.

Many schools are adopting a 75-15-5-5 revenue-sharing model: 75% to football, 15% to men’s basketball, 5% to women’s basketball, and just 5% to all other sports combined – putting Olympic sports at serious risk.

While leaders like SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey have pledged to “work to avoid” cutting sports, there’s no binding mandate or financial model to protect them. As a result, schools may quietly reconfigure offerings, cutting opportunities for thousands of athletes.

This also raises a bigger question: What happens to the future of the U.S. Olympic movement?

The U.S. collegiate system is the primary development pipeline for Olympic athletes. In 2024, 75% of U.S. Olympians competed in college. For 21 Olympic teams, at least 80% of athletes came through the collegiate system, and 15 teams were made up entirely of college athletes. Key sports like swimming, diving, track and field, rowing, water polo, and volleyball rely almost exclusively on college-based development.

If these sports are sacrificed, the U.S. risks a significant talent gap – weakening future Olympic teams and reshaping how the country develops elite athletes.

EXHIBIT B

In a major move this week, the Florida Board of Governors approved a rule allowing Florida State University and other public universities in the state to use up to $22.5 million annually from “auxiliary” funds, which come from parking fees, campus housing, bookstores, and other non-academic sources, to help fund athlete compensation under the new NCAA revenue-sharing model.

Previously, these funds couldn’t be used for athletics. The new rule clears the path for schools like FSU to fully fund athlete payments up to the maximum cap, ensuring they stay competitive in a post-House landscape.

Expect other states to follow. This change reflects the early stages of what will likely become a state-by-state arms race, with public universities lobbying for expanded financial leeway to keep pace.

ON THE DOCKET

I’m closely watching the case of Tennessee basketball player Zakai Zeigler, whose legal team filed an appeal this week after a judge denied his bid for a fifth year of eligibility. While his chances may seem slim, the judge ruled the NCAA’s eligibility limit doesn’t create substantial anticompetitive effects, the case carries broader legal and structural implications.

With revenue sharing and NIL money, staying in school is no longer a financial disadvantage for elite athletes. It may even become the smarter business move. This year, just 106 underclassmen declared for the NBA Draft – a 10-year low – suggesting athletes are opting to extend their college careers, driven by economics rather than tradition.

Ziegler’s case isn’t just about one player. It reflects a growing tension between modern athlete rights and an outdated rulebook. As courts weigh in, the outcome could reshape eligibility standards, athlete contracts, and how we define the student-athlete in a new era of college sports professionalism.

FOOTNOTES

“A matter of minutes.”

How quickly one college athlete said their NIL deal was approved through NIL Go. While some transactions are proving seamless, more complex agreements are expected to take significantly longer.