The House Settlement.

House v. NCAA is a federal antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed in 2020 by former Arizona State swimmer Grant House and three other student-athletes. The case challenged the NCAA's restrictions on athlete compensation, arguing that the system violated antitrust law by artificially capping what schools could pay athletes for their NIL rights and for participating in national broadcasts.

On May 23, 2024, the parties announced a landmark settlement agreement worth approximately $2.8 billion to be paid out over ten years. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval of the settlement on July 7, 2025. The settlement fundamentally changes the economic model of college athletics.

The settlement includes approximately $2.8 billion in damages for past NIL losses. Former student-athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024 may be eligible for compensation based on the sport they played, the division level, and how their NIL was used in broadcasts and other media.

• •Eligible claimants include:
• •Division I football and men's basketball players (highest awards)
• •Division I women's basketball players
• •All other Division I athletes in revenue and non-revenue sports
• •Division II and Division III athletes in some limited broadcast categories

Claimants were required to submit a claim by the court-ordered deadline. Payout amounts vary based on sport type, years of eligibility used, and media usage data compiled by experts.

Starting with the 2025–26 academic year, Division I schools may share up to approximately $20–22 million per year directly with their student-athletes. This represents the most dramatic structural change in college athletics: for the first time, schools can pay athletes from their own athletic revenues — not just third-party NIL deals.

• •Key revenue sharing details:
• •The per-school annual cap begins near $20.5M and increases by approximately 4% per year
• •The cap is recalculated every three years based on average Division I athletic revenue
• •Distributions are contractual arrangements between the school and athlete — not employment agreements
• •Schools decide how to divide the pool across sports and athletes (football/basketball will likely receive the largest shares)
• •Schools are NOT required to share revenue — it is permissive, not mandatory

Schools with annual athletic revenue over $20 million are required to provide a floor of benefits to student-athletes, including:

• •Mental health services and counseling programs
• •Access to legal counsel and tax advisory services
• •Career readiness and financial literacy counseling
• •Degree completion assistance after eligibility ends
• •Post-eligibility medical benefits for injuries sustained during participation
• •Prohibition on scholarship revocation based on athletic performance, illness, injury, or mental or physical condition

The settlement does not preempt or alter the requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Schools must ensure that revenue sharing distributions do not create or exacerbate unlawful gender inequities.

The U.S. Department of Education and plaintiffs' counsel have indicated that schools should track distributions by gender to ensure compliance. Schools distributing significantly more to men's sports than women's sports may face scrutiny. The settlement creates pressure on schools to expand revenue sharing to women's programs.

As part of the settlement, the NCAA and conferences agreed to replace scholarship limits with hard roster limits for each sport. This change, which took effect for many sports beginning in the 2025–26 academic year, has significant recruiting implications.

• •Selected new roster limits:
• •FBS Football: 105 players (up from 85 scholarship max)
• •Men's Basketball: 15 players
• •Women's Basketball: 15 players
• •Baseball: 34 players
• •Softball: 25 players

Athletes already on scholarship retain their aid regardless of roster changes. Walk-ons may now receive scholarship money if schools choose.

Critically, the settlement does not reclassify student-athletes as employees. The agreement explicitly provides that no individual may be considered an employee of a school, conference, or the NCAA based solely on participation in intercollegiate athletics.

However, the settlement does not preclude states or the National Labor Relations Board from separately pursuing employment classification. Several states and the NLRA have ongoing proceedings that could still result in employee status for some athletes at unionized schools.

No federal NIL law has passed. The House Settlement establishes the current economic framework, but a federal statute would supersede it and could materially change the rules. Three legislative efforts are active.

The SCORE Act (H.R. 4312). The Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act would codify the House Settlement framework, add new agent and disclosure rules, and preempt the patchwork of state NIL laws. As of May 2026, the bill is stalled. It cleared two House committees in September 2025. House leadership scheduled floor votes in December 2025 and May 2026; both were pulled before reaching a vote. The Congressional Black Caucus is unanimously opposed, two original co-sponsors (Reps. Shomari Figures and Janelle Bynum) have withdrawn support, and the bill has no clear path to the House floor.

• •Key provisions as introduced (subject to ongoing amendment):
• •Revenue sharing of at least 22% of average annual athletic revenue across the 70 highest-earning institutional athletic associations
• •Antitrust safe harbor for the NCAA, conferences, and schools when setting rules on NIL, transfers, eligibility, and agents
• •Athletes explicitly classified as non-employees; would foreclose collective bargaining as a federal path
• •Agent fees capped at 5% on compensation under institutional NIL agreements
• •Schools with athletic revenue above $20 million required to sponsor at least 16 varsity sports by July 1, 2027
• •Preemption of state and local laws on athlete compensation, benefits, employment status, eligibility, and academic standards
• •Title IX obligations preserved

Alternative House Bill — CARA. Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) has introduced the College Athletics Reform Act (CARA) as a Democratic alternative. It would establish a federal NIL framework and create a bipartisan commission to review college sports governance, with materially different terms than SCORE — notably without the antitrust safe harbor.

Senate Negotiations. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) are negotiating a separate bipartisan Senate proposal. Senate passage would require 60 votes and faces an uncertain path. Whether the Senate produces a competing vehicle or amends a House-passed bill remains open.

What this means today: federal law has not changed the playing field. Existing state NIL laws remain in force. The House Settlement framework — including the revenue-sharing cap, roster limits, and athlete benefits floor — is the operative rulebook.

On April 3, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Urgent National Action to Save College Sports." Sections 3 through 6 of the order take effect August 1, 2026. The order applies only to institutions reporting at least $20 million in annual intercollegiate athletics revenue — effectively the Power Four and upper-tier Group of Six schools.

• •What the order directs federal agencies to do:
• •Federal agencies that fund higher education must review whether institutions comply with athletic-governing-body rules on eligibility, transfers, and revenue sharing
• •Office of Management and Budget: issue suspension/debarment guidance for institutions found in violation
• •Secretary of Education: consider rulemaking requiring institutions to report roster spots and athlete spending
• •Federal Trade Commission: enforce consumer protection laws against improper conduct by student-athlete agents
• •Attorney General: challenge state laws that conflict with athletic-governance rules or burden interstate commerce

• •Eligibility and transfer rules the order pushes governing bodies to adopt:
• •A five-year participation window, with limited exceptions for military service, missionary service, and other absences in the public interest
• •Professional athletes barred from returning to college competition
• •One transfer with immediate eligibility during the five-year window
• •A second transfer with immediate eligibility permitted only after the athlete obtains a four-year degree

Fraudulent NIL scheme — defined. The order defines a fraudulent NIL scheme as a payment for goods or services (including NIL services) above the actual fair market value of those goods or services in connection with a student-athlete's participation in intercollegiate athletics, including through the use of collectives or similar entities. Excluded: revenue sharing consistent with governing-body rules, and fair-market-value compensation from unaffiliated third parties for legitimate business purposes unrelated to the athlete's specific program.

What this means for athletes: the order directs federal agencies and athletic governing bodies — it does not itself change NCAA bylaws or state law. The eligibility and transfer rules require governing-body adoption to take effect. The enforcement provisions (FTC, OMB, DOJ) apply directly to institutions and may shape compliance entering the 2026-27 season.

The existing settlement and pending federal action both contemplate new rules for sports agents and NIL advisors working with college athletes:

• •If enacted, the SCORE Act would cap agent fees at 5% of compensation under institutional NIL agreements — a narrower scope than all NIL deals (see Federal Legislation)
• •Under the April 2026 executive order, the Federal Trade Commission enforces consumer protection laws against improper conduct by student-athlete agents (see Executive Order)
• •Schools with annual athletic revenue above $20 million are required to provide athletes with access to legal and tax advisory services at no charge
• •Licensed sports agents must comply with state athlete agent registration laws, which vary significantly by state

For athletes evaluating representation, the House settlement era increases the value of having a licensed advocate. Deals are larger, more complex, and have longer-term tax and eligibility consequences.