Anyone with even a minor interest in college athletics is aware of the House vs. NCAA lawsuit. It’s everywhere you turn – and with good reason. The House settlement stands to fundamentally change the landscape of college sports. It will also redefine the student-athlete experience, though just for those who are lucky enough to still be on the roster.
What’s the big deal about the House settlement? Simply put, it will require the NCAA and DI institutions to pay student-athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024 and missed out on the opportunity to make money through NIL. House includes three antitrust lawsuits and the amount is staggering — $2.8 billion. The settlement will also dictate how athletes can be paid by institutions going forward.
While it has been anticipated that a final ruling would be issued any day, yesterday Judge Claudia Wilken delayed the ruling due to the NCAA’s proposed implementation of new roster sizes. Because the new roster limits would begin immediately upon settlement approval, many current student-athletes would find themselves without a team.
The judge’s concerns are valid. Many student-athletes have already been cut from teams and others have had their offers rescinded in anticipation of the settlement approval.
This delay gives attorneys 14 days to add a “grandfathering” clause to the settlement’s roster limit language, protecting the roster spots of current athletes. While I think this is the right thing to do, it is only a temporary fix. The long-term effect of reduced roster sizes will remain the same. And it has major implications for the NAIA, DII, and DIII.
Stay tuned for Part II.