In June 2025, a federal court approved the landmark House v. NCAA class action settlement, authorizing Division 1 schools to share upwards of $20 million in athletic revenue directly with student-athletes. The NCAA, power conferences, and player advocates hoped the new rules and structures ushered in by the settlement would provide stability after a chaotic few years of escalating NIL payments, transfer portal hyperactivity, and persistent angst about the fate of non-revenue “Olympic” revenue. But with the 2025-26 athletic season drawing near its conclusion, the chaos has only intensified.
Syllabus
- The terms of last summer’s House settlement, including with respect to revenue sharing and third-party NIL compensation
- the trials and tribulations faced by the NCAA and the College Sports Commission, the new entity born from House, to oversee revenue sharing and enforce limitations on third-party NIL deals
- The legal questions and ramifications stemming from high-profile instances of players transferring or threatening to transfer to new schools after signing lucrative NIL deals with their original institution
- The ongoing, multi-faceted fight over the NCAA’s longstanding eligibility restrictions, including the “four in five rule” and the prohibition on professional athletes obtaining eligibility
- The impact on so-called “Olympic” sports generates less revenue than football and basketball
- And the status of efforts by Congress and, more recently, the Oval Office to codify a uniform set of rules
Instructor
Fritz Metzinger, Esq.
