The approval of the House vs. NCAA settlement signifies a monumental change in the foundation of college athletics, especially college football. Starting now, schools will directly compensate athletes, with major programs expected to allocate between $14-16 million each year. New roster limits and a newly established clearinghouse for fair market values will also be implemented.

These adjustments aim to stabilize the sport and prevent future legal disputes, but concerns linger.

The Reality Check

If you think this settlement will eliminate chaos, think again. The NCAA still operates without an anti-trust exemption and does not collectively bargain with its athletes, which means that any changes to the current structure are merely temporary measures.

Darren Heitner, a significant figure in sports law, stated, “All these rules are … very arbitrary and are not bargained with the players. Until the NCAA decides to treat the players as employees or a unit to bargain with, they’ll continue facing challenges regarding anti-trust law.”

Lawsuits from athletes and states have driven the NCAA toward relinquishing its traditional amateurism model. Past pressures have already resulted in legal victories that shifted the NCAA’s rules concerning athlete eligibility and transfers.

Future Implications

The House Settlement sets a revenue-sharing cap, with stipulations about the determination of market values for NIL deals. Athletes are expected to contest these limitations in court, as many already have for similar issues.

Analysts predict that as long as the NCAA lacks protective anti-trust measures, lawsuits will continue to challenge the new rules. Many states have enacted laws that inhibit the NCAA’s ability to regulate compensation for its athletes, further complicating the landscape.

The bottom line is that while the House Settlement alters college sports significantly, its dependence on outdated principles may lead to future conflict and instability.