The House v. NCAA settlement has transformed the college sports landscape, raising new questions around athlete employment status; name, image, and likeness (NIL) compliance; and Title IX obligations. As legal challenges and regulatory proposals multiply, institutions, investors, and sponsors must navigate a rapidly evolving environment.
This Insight explores the emerging risks and policy shifts shaping the future of college athletics in the wake of this groundbreaking settlement.
Since the announcement of the House settlement, stakeholders across the college sports landscape have been confronted with a range of unresolved legal and structural questions, particularly concerning the short- and long-term implications of the agreement. Chief among these is whether student-athletes can now officially be considered employees, and if so, can they unionize?
Although student-athlete organizing efforts have gained momentum in recent years, whether they have the legal right to unionize remains unresolved, with added uncertainty stemming from US President Donald Trump’s Saving College Sports executive order. The order, released on July 24, 2025, outlines a broad regulatory agenda for college sports, including a directive for the US Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to clarify the employee status of collegiate athletes through “guidance, rules, or other appropriate actions.”
However, due to the limited number of ways that the NLRB can effectuate changes to law, a decision on whether student-athletes are employees is not anticipated to come anytime soon. In the absence of any substantive federal legislation concerning this issue, student athlete employment status will likely continue to be governed by a patchwork of state laws. Yet, as the features of NIL deals continue to resemble employment agreements, it could strengthen the arguments of student athletes, especially as more legal challenges unfold ahead of any federal resolution.
While unionization and the application of the non-statutory labor exemption could provide a clearer pathway for schools, conferences, and divisions to structure athlete compensation, they also introduce significant operational and financial tradeoffs. Without a unified legal framework, institutions may face a shifting and fragmented regulatory environment that increases compliance risk, limits flexibility, and creates hesitation among potential partners and investors. Until federal action brings consistency, the question of student-athlete classification will remain a source of both legal uncertainty and strategic complexity for college sports.
In addition to ongoing uncertainty surrounding how student athlete compensation will be implemented under the House settlement, a key concern is how such payments will align with Title IX. Under Title IX, schools must provide equitable opportunities for male and female student-athletes, including fair access to financial assistance and athletic resources. Equal opportunity can be measured in a variety of ways for student athletes, including providing certain benefits and treatment, athletic scholarships, and meeting the students’ athletic interests and abilities (i.e., equipment, stadiums, etc.).
With the emergence of revenue sharing and direct payments by schools, the question of how Title IX applies in this new compensation landscape takes on renewed urgency. The House settlement, which will also distribute $2.8 billion to compensate former college athletes, will follow a distribution model that allocates approximately
In response, eight female student athletes appealed this decision, arguing that the $102 million allocation (of the total $2.8 billion) suggests that schools would have paid male student athletes 90% of their revenue over the past six years, effectively disregarding Title IX. Judge Claudia Wilken of the US District Court for the Northern District of California rejected these arguments during the settlement approval process. She concluded that the settlement does not compel schools to violate Title IX and that if any violations occur in how revenue is distributed, class members retain the right to pursue legal action.
The appeal is pending before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the central issue is whether Judge Wilken abused her discretion in approving the settlement despite the gender equity concerns raised. Although any decision in the Ninth Circuit will almost certainly be appealed to the US Supreme Court, the portion of the settlement permitting forward-looking revenue sharing remains in effect and is not paused by the current litigation.
As college sports awaits regulatory certainty, covered educational institutions should actively evaluate current compliance with Title IX, avoid, as much as possible, involvement in athletes’ NIL deals, and try to distribute revenue proportionately among male and female student athletes. The US administration’s recent executive order reinforces this approach, stating that any university-led revenue sharing should protect women’s and non-revenue sports and maintain or increase scholarship opportunities for underrepresented athletes.
When the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) opted to settle House v. NCAA rather than proceed with litigation, it likely did so with two primary goals in mind: to manage financial exposure and to introduce greater clarity and predictability into a college sports landscape that has remained unsettled in recent years. Nonetheless, several questions and legal hurdles still remain for the NCAA.
Alongside the unresolved Title IX and labor classification issues, the House settlement also presents complex antitrust challenges. Critics of the settlement argue that the revenue-sharing caps, effective July 1, 2025, amount to wage fixing and thus violate antitrust laws, raising doubts about their long-term viability. With hundreds of opt-out cases still pending and growing opposition to antitrust immunity from both major professional sports players’ associations and state attorneys general, the enforceability of revenue-sharing caps may remain contested for years to come.
From an NIL perspective, the College Sports Commission (CSC), the independent governing body created to ensure compliance with the House settlement, has reported substantial activity since the settlement took effect on July 1, with more than 12,000 student-athletes registering for the NIL Go clearinghouse and more than 1,500 NIL deals being approved as of July 10. However, one of the most notable developments was the CSC’s confirmation that it had rejected certain NIL deals because the other contracting party, a collective, lacked a valid business purpose for engaging the subject student-athlete.
In response to a flood of backlash, including threats of action from counsel for the plaintiffs in the House settlement, the parties to the House settlement issued a joint statement on July 31 advising that the CSC had issued new guidance that collectives could, in fact, enter into an NIL deal with a student-athlete provided that the parties’ agreement complies with the valid business purpose requirement of the settlement and is related to the offering of goods or services to the general public for a profit (and not to induce a student-athlete to attend or play at a specific institution).
Despite this recent change in direction, just how receptive the CSC will be to NIL deals with collectives remains increasingly uncertain, particularly in light of potential federal government regulation. In addition to executive branch actions, the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act was introduced in the US House of Representatives on July 10.
The bill aims to codify the House settlement and establish a national framework for NIL agreements by preempting conflicting state laws, limiting the classification of student-athletes as employees, and granting the NCAA certain antitrust protections. However, it would require bipartisan support to pass both chambers of the US Congress, making it likely that legislative action will trail the changes already set in motion by the executive order. Ultimately, achieving lasting regulatory clarity will require bipartisan legislative consensus to ensure that all stakeholders in college sports can operate under a stable and predictable framework going forward.
The post-House era brings unprecedented regulatory and structural uncertainty to college sports. With employment status, revenue sharing, and NIL oversight under scrutiny, institutions must prepare for new compliance challenges and potential litigation. As Congress, federal agencies, and the courts continue to weigh in, stakeholders should closely monitor legal developments and continuously assess their exposure under labor, antitrust, and Title IX frameworks. A proactive strategy today will be essential to thrive in tomorrow’s redefined collegiate sports landscape.