College sports are undergoing a seismic shift as commercial activity accelerates and athlete compensation evolves. With the approval of the House vs. NCAA settlement and a surge in private investment, the traditional model of collegiate athletics is rapidly being redefined. This Insight explores how capital, compliance, and institutional structures are reshaping the future of college sports.
Private Investment & Institutional Transformation
As interest in college sports continues to rise, commercial opportunities for athletes and universities are rapidly expanding, particularly in the post-House settlement era. With student athletes now being entitled to revenue-sharing payments, combined with billion-dollar media rights deals and rising demand for improvements at stadiums and training facilities, unprecedented levels of capital are now flowing into college sports. These new and evolving demands are putting intense financial pressure on athletic departments and conferences, straining balance sheets that now need to account for rising operational costs, expanded cross-country travel requirements, and hiring additional professional staff.
In response to this intensifying demand for capital, a window has opened for private equity to bridge the gap and finance growth for sophisticated college athletic programs. Given its enormous capital pools and unique structuring opportunities to permit risk sharing with schools, private equity is poised to claim an ever-larger slice of the college sports investment pie.
However, several challenges remain for private equity to effectively flow into college sports. Navigating institutional structures with both private, non-profit schools and state-funded universities, as well as Title IX compliance and heightened scrutiny from regulatory bodies and the public creates uncertainty. Still, private equity’s operational expertise and ability to tailor and streamline organizational designs will undoubtedly unlock significant value for college sports.
Looking ahead, as investment activity continues to trend upwards, common deal structures and features will likely begin to materialize, simplifying pathways for private equity firms. Concurrently, athletic departments should begin planning ahead as swiftly as possible, evaluating their respective organizational structures and formulating comprehensive strategies to address the inevitable presence of private equity in college sports.
Sponsorships & Commercial Partnerships
For prospective sponsors and corporate partners, there are a number of entitlement considerations that must be navigated, especially in the college sports landscape. Essentially, entitlements represent the benefits and rights that sponsors receive in exchange for their sponsorship fee, such as advertising rights on signage within an arena. As teams and colleges begin to divvy up entitlements in a particular area (e.g., official drink partner), entitlements have become increasingly specific (e.g., official energy drink partner, official soft drink partner), making category exclusivity an important consideration for sponsors going forward. Precision and specificity are also crucial with regard to TV broadcast entitlements and benefits. Sponsors negotiating broadcast deals should indicate exactly what types of entitlements they would like to receive from the outset, including the specific amounts of graphic and audio mentions, animated locators, and dominant on-course signage during the entitled event.
Navigating digital entitlement opportunities has also become an area of focus for sponsors, ranging from in-venue display signage to social media campaigns. Fan engagement and capturing the fan experience is a growing priority, with sponsors increasingly exploring ways to reach fans post-event through team apps and push notifications that maintain engagement over a contracted period.
Litigation and the Washington Backdrop
For decades, the US Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984), which recognized amateurism as an essential component of college sports, went largely unchallenged by universities and athletes alike. The Court in Board of Regents described the NCAA’s rules restricting student-athlete compensation as necessary to preserve the character and quality of college athletics and to distinguish it from professional sports. However, multiple cases brought by former student athletes over the past decade have challenged that premise. These suits began the process that led to the House settlement and ultimately unraveled the existing model.
O’Bannon v. NCAA (9th Cir., 2015) and NCAA v. Alston (2021) each played crucial roles in laying the foundation for student athletes to hold the rights to their name, image, and likeness (NIL), leading the NCAA to issue an interim NIL policy in 2021 that allowed student athletes to profit from their NIL for the first time. The House settlement, which received final approval on June 6, 2025, took athlete compensation one step further, establishing a revenue sharing framework that would allow each university to pay its student athletes up to $20.5 million, with that figure set to increase 4% annually over the next 10 years.
However, the future of the House settlement still faces several legal and antitrust hurdles, which many anticipate will require government intervention to facilitate its implementation. Committees in both the US Senate and House of Representatives are actively exploring various forms of legislation to address lingering issues in the post-House settlement environment. Ultimately, Congress will need to determine the extent of antitrust protection appropriate for college sports, while also navigating competing legislative priorities and political dynamics.
Effective July 1, 2025, colleges and universities that opted in to the House settlement can officially begin distributing compensation from the $20.5 million “pool” to its student athletes during the academic year. In addition to the compensation athletes are receiving from their respective institutions, student athletes can also continue to engage in NIL contracts and payments, though these agreements will be more intensely scrutinized than ever before.
Going forward, all NIL deals worth $600 or more must be submitted and vetted by the Deloitte-run NIL Go clearinghouse that is overseen by the College Sports Commission, the independent enforcement body created to address issues arising under the House settlement. This new third-party evaluation framework is designed to function as a watchdog for improper NIL deals and will assess the following:
These inquiries are designed to ferret out NIL deals that are really “pay-for-play” transactions that are prohibited by NCAA rules. However, it remains unclear how NIL Go and the College Sports Commission will determine what is a valid business purpose and what is fair market value for a student athlete’s NIL rights.
Further, as the line continues to blur between the amateur and professional status of student athletes, questions continue to be raised as to whether student athletes should be allowed to unionize. While state legislatures and the National Labor Relations Board have grappled with this issue for decades, the conditions to unionize post-House settlement look far more favorable given the similarity between NIL agreements and employment agreements. If inequities in the distribution of NIL money and the House settlement creates a system of “haves” and “have nots” between revenue-generating and non-revenue generating sports, it could catalyze the level of uncertainty needed across college sports to motivate student athletes to potentially organize.
As commercial and legal frameworks around college athletics continue to evolve, institutions, investors, and sponsors should prepare for a dramatically reshaped landscape. The convergence of athlete compensation, private investment, and regulatory complexity has transformed the business model of college sports, presenting both significant opportunities and novel risks. Navigating this new era will likely require adaptability, strategic planning, and a deep understanding of the shifting legal and institutional terrain.
To learn more about the legal and compliance challenges underlying these shifts in college sports, register for Part 2 of our College Sports at a Crossroads webinar series on July 29 at 2:00 pm ET.
Summer associate Samuel Kennel contributed to this Insight.