A New Era of Athlete Compensation

In April 2025, the landscape of college athletics stands at a historic crossroads. The House v. NCAA settlement, a $2.8 billion antitrust agreement, has received preliminary approval and awaits final court approval on July 1, 2025. This landmark case, which consolidates House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, and Carter v. NCAA, promises to reshape the financial model of college sports by allowing schools to pay athletes through revenue sharing directly. 

But as the dust settles on this monumental shift, a critical question looms: will athletes finally have a voice in shaping their future? The answer hinges on the unresolved issue of collective bargaining and the broader implications of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies.

A New Era of Athlete Compensation

For decades, the NCAA’s amateurism model restricted college athletes from profiting off their fame, even as universities raked in billions from media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships. The 2021 Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v. Alston cracked open the door for NIL compensation, allowing athletes to sign endorsement deals with brands and collectives. However, the House v. NCAA settlement takes this a step further by enabling schools to share up to $20.5 million annually with athletes starting in the 2025-26 academic year, a figure expected to grow to $32.9 million by 2034-35. This revenue-sharing model, capped at 22% of a school’s athletic revenue, marks the end of the NCAA’s long-standing prohibition on direct payments to athletes.

The settlement also addresses past injustices. Nearly $2.8 billion in back-pay damages will be distributed over 10 years to athletes who competed between 2016 and 2021, before NIL was permitted. Football and men’s basketball players from power conferences could receive six-figure payouts, while others, like swimmers or soccer players, might see smaller amounts. This retroactive compensation acknowledges the lost opportunities of athletes who helped generate massive revenue for their schools without fair compensation.

The Role of NIL Collectives and Oversight

The settlement also seeks to regulate the chaotic NIL landscape. Since 2021, booster-funded collectives have operated as de facto pay-for-play systems, offering athletes lucrative deals to recruit or retain talent. While these deals have empowered athletes, they’ve also created an uneven playing field, favoring schools with wealthy donors. The House settlement introduces a clearinghouse, managed by Deloitte, to review NIL deals worth $600 or more to ensure they reflect “fair market value” and aren’t veiled attempts to circumvent the $20.5 million salary cap.

This oversight aims to bring transparency and fairness but raises questions. How will “fair market value” be determined? Could the clearinghouse stifle legitimate NIL opportunities? Some schools plan to absorb collectives into their athletic departments, while others may phase them out entirely. The uncertainty has sparked debate, with critics arguing that restricting third-party deals without athlete input invites further litigation.

The Path Forward - Empowering Athletes

The House v. NCAA settlement is a historic step toward professionalizing college sports, but it’s not a cure-all. The absence of athlete representation at the negotiating table is a glaring gap. As Jim Cavale of Athletes.org told On3, “I’m concerned because the athletes aren’t involved in the setting of those terms.” Empowering athletes to negotiate their share of the revenue pie—whether through unions, a players’ association, or a hybrid model—is critical to creating a fair and sustainable system.

College leaders face a choice: proactively involve athletes in shaping the future or risk further legal battles. The settlement provides a nine-month window before revenue sharing begins, offering a golden opportunity to educate athletes and establish frameworks for negotiation. Beyond compensation, athletes could influence transfer rules, mental health resources, and post-eligibility medical coverage—issues that directly impact their well-being.

Final Words

The House v. NCAA settlement is more than a financial agreement—it’s a turning point for college athletics. By dismantling the amateurism model, it acknowledges the value athletes bring to their schools and fans. Yet, the fight for equity and agency continues. Will schools and the NCAA embrace athletes as partners in this new era, or will they cling to outdated control? The answer will shape not just the future of NIL but the soul of college sports.

As we await final approval, one thing is clear: athletes are no longer silent. From courtrooms to Capitol Hill, their voices are demanding to be heard.