Robert Way / Shutterstock.com
Judge Claudia Wilken dropped a bombshell on the NCAA Wednesday, giving the organization just 14 days to figure out how to gradually implement new roster limits or risk having the entire House v. NCAA settlement thrown out. The federal judge made it clear she wants current athletes “grandfathered in” until their eligibility expires.
Without this protection, nearly 5,000 college athletes could find themselves suddenly cut from teams across the NCAA’s 43 sports. Wilken’s concerns about roster limits first surfaced when she granted preliminary approval on April 7, and now she’s putting her foot down.
The NCAA isn’t thrilled about this development.
In response to the judge’s deadline, the NCAA and Power Five conferences released a carefully worded statement: “We are closely reviewing Judge Wilken’s order. Our focus continues to be on securing approval of this significant agreement, which aims to create more opportunities than ever before for student-athletes while fostering much-needed stability and fairness in college sports.”
The settlement would dramatically reshape college athletics. Football rosters would shrink to 105 players — forcing many programs to cut 20+ players. Some schools have already started making these cuts, even though the settlement hasn’t received final approval.
What’s at stake? A massive $2.8 billion deal that would allow schools to directly pay players starting July 1. Each school could distribute up to $20.5 million annually to athletes (with that cap increasing 4% yearly over the 10-year agreement). The settlement also includes $2.8 billion in back payments for athletes who competed between 2016-2024.
Understanding House v. NCAA
This class-action antitrust lawsuit began in 2020 when Arizona State swimmer Grant House and women’s basketball player Sedona Prince sought to remove restrictions on sharing media rights revenue with athletes. They enlisted heavyweight antitrust attorneys Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler.
If approved, the settlement would resolve three separate antitrust lawsuits: Carter v. NCAA, House v. NCAA, and Hubbard v. NCAA — essentially ending years of litigation against the NCAA’s economic model.
What Happens Next?
Most power programs are planning to distribute future revenue using a formula that mimics the back-payment model: roughly 75% to football players, 15% to men’s basketball, 5% to women’s basketball, and 5% to all other sports. The exact percentages will vary by school.
Legal challenges aren’t going away — they’re just changing targets. Instead of suing the NCAA, athletes might soon take individual schools to court over Title IX concerns or revenue distribution inequities. For example, a women’s basketball player could sue if she believes she’s not getting a fair share compared to male athletes, or a football player might sue if his revenue share is lower than what players receive at rival schools.
The NCAA is once again begging Congress for help. College sports leaders have long sought federal legislation protecting them from antitrust litigation, and those efforts are intensifying. The House Education and Workforce Committee will hold its 13th hearing on college sports next Tuesday.
Conference commissioners, ADs, and coaches are planning a full-court press on Capitol Hill Wednesday, lobbying for federal legislation that would cement the House settlement terms. They’re likely to meet with Sen. Ted Cruz, who’s drafting a bill that could offer the NCAA limited antitrust protection.
NCAA president Charlie Baker will join members of the House Judiciary Committee Friday for a roundtable discussion in Madison, Wisconsin.
Meanwhile, Power Five conferences are creating a new enforcement arm to oversee the settlement. This organization — not the NCAA — would police NIL deals between players and third parties, monitor revenue-sharing practices, and handle penalties for violations. It represents a significant shift in power away from the NCAA.
Who’s paying for all this? The NCAA is responsible for 40% of the $2.77 billion settlement. The remaining 60% ($1.6 billion) comes from reducing NCAA revenue distributions to the 32 Division I conferences over the next decade. According to Yahoo Sports, the formula is based on revenue distribution from 2016 onward, heavily weighted toward basketball units tied to NCAA Tournament participation.
The Power Five conferences will shoulder 24% of the damages, Group of Five conferences 10%, FCS schools 14%, and non-football Division I conferences 12%, according to documents reviewed by CBS Sports.
Settlement Terms at a Glance
- $20.5 million salary cap for revenue-sharing at each Division I school (starting July 1)
- $2.77 billion in back payments to as many as 390,000 athletes from 2016-2024
- Outside NIL deals exceeding $600 must be vetted by a third-party clearinghouse
- NIL deals must meet “fair market value” (though the definition remains hotly debated)
- Unlimited scholarships with new roster size limits
- 88,104 athletes have filed back-pay claims so far — expected to reach 118,879 soon, according to plaintiff attorney Steve Berman
- 343 athletes opted out of the settlement
- 73 athletes object to the terms
