Basepath hosted a workshop to discuss the new release of the long-form House v. NCAA settlement with Attorney and Sports Business Reporter Kristi Dosh. The session provides insights into the settlement’s implications on NIL agreements, revenue sharing and legal cases. As these topics continue to shape collegiate sports, understanding the nuances in the settlement phrasing will be crucial for navigating the road ahead.
Current cases against the NCAA (2:20)
Several new legal challenges are emerging against the NCAA, as well as separate actions targeting restrictions within the Ivy League. Notably, Ivy League athletes are suing their conference, not the NCAA, over compensation restrictions, arguing that without athletic scholarships, they should be able to earn money through NIL. Meanwhile, opposition to the House settlement continues to grow, with three lawsuits already filed in opposition.Â
Additionally, a former NCAA baseball player is suing over the previous cap on scholarships, challenging the rules that existed during his time as an athlete. In another new case, Canadian junior hockey players are challenging NCAA rules around professional competition and amateurism, arguing that athletes who previously competed in pro leagues are unfairly restricted from NCAA sports.
These cases put additional pressure on the NCAA, particularly in relation to the House settlement, which the NCAA has positioned as a solution to many outstanding legal disputes. However, only two cases have been brought into the settlement so far, and a judge will soon decide if this resolution is truly fair. It’s clear that House is not the solution to all ongoing cases; in fact, it may be sparking even more legal challenges as athletes continue to push back against outdated rules.
Aspects of the House Settlement (7:00)
Looking ahead, the NCAA is considering new rules that could significantly impact the NIL landscape, particularly in relation to 501(c)(3) collectives. One proposal seems to directly target nonprofit collectives, stipulating that NIL deals must be with for-profit businesses. Under this rule, 501(c)(3) boosters—whether acting individually or collectively—would only be allowed to engage in NIL deals if the payment is for a legitimate business purpose tied to the promotion or endorsement of goods or services offered to the public for profit. Importantly, these deals must be at rates comparable to what a non-athlete would receive.
This presents a challenge for many schools that are using 501(c)(3) structures to raise money for their collectives, as they may now be restricted in how those funds can be used for NIL purposes.
Additionally, any collective entering into a deal will be subject to evaluation by a third party. While deals can move forward without pre-approval, they will be reviewed retrospectively. If flagged for an issue that could lead to penalties for the athlete or the school, athletes will have the option to return the money and avoid punishment.
More problematic, however, is the notion that athletes should receive only “market rate” compensation. Given that athletes generally have significantly higher engagement rates than non-athletes, this could undervalue their true market worth. Unlike this NCAA proposal, the NFL’s system, which also uses a clearinghouse to evaluate deals, acknowledges the unique value athletes bring and compensates them accordingly.
Title IX (16:50)
How the $20 million settlement requirement will interact with Title IX is still uncertain, especially when considering how schools might allocate a significant portion of those funds to football and men’s basketball. Since the settlement isn’t final, important decisions still need to be made regarding the valuation of different positions. Title IX compliance is likely to be determined in the courts, as each school will approach the House settlement differently in relation to gender equity.
While Title IX mandates equitable opportunities, it doesn’t require equal dollar amounts, meaning compensation can vary based on market value. Schools will need to rely on real data—such as broadcasting revenue and other market factors—to determine appropriate compensation for athletes. It’s crucial that schools develop a clear plan and communicate it with their athletes.
As it stands, Kristi hasn’t seen any schools actively discussing revenue sharing with their athletes. Some institutions are considering advances for athletes, as well as addressing back pay. Meanwhile, companies are emerging, like the one involving a Gator athlete, that offer athletes the option to receive advances on their deals at the cost of their future earnings. However, these advances could potentially trap athletes in restrictive agreements that bind them to future payments.
Revenue sharing (26:30)
Many university administrators are expressing concern about being the payers of record for revenue-sharing payments and are exploring the possibility of outsourcing this responsibility to third parties. The question arises: do schools have to handle the payments directly, or can they hand over the $20 million to a third party, such as a collective, to manage on their behalf?
The answer varies from campus to campus. Some schools plan to utilize collectives to make the payments, while others argue that since the university is the one generating the revenue, they must be responsible for distributing the payments. Regardless of who handles the disbursement, Title IX will still apply, as the funds originate from athletic department revenue.
However, many universities lack the staffing and resources to manage this process internally, which is why they’re inclined to delegate it to collectives that have the bandwidth to handle the administrative load. Additionally, revenue-sharing amounts could vary from year to year for individual athletes, depending on a variety of factors.
Schools are not required to impose additional conditions on revenue-sharing, such as requiring athletes to make extra social media posts. Athletes naturally serve as ambassadors for their universities and athletic departments. However, every school approaches this differently—some may simply distribute revenue-share dollars for being part of the team, while others might attach specific conditions.
For example, student-athletes might be required to make 10 social media posts, which the school could then sell to other companies and retain the profit. In some cases, athletes could face penalties or have funds recalled for transferring, graduating early, or opting out of bowl games.
As more parameters are added to these revenue-sharing agreements, the structure begins to resemble employment. Schools aim to extract the maximum value from these contracts while also protecting themselves from potential losses, such as athletes transferring or opting out of key events.
General Managers and international athletes (38:00)
Many schools are considering placing a cap on the number of years a student-athlete can receive revenue share, with a potential maximum of four years. Additionally, there are discussions about the role of athletic departments in acting as agents for athletes, either on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis. Athletes are being advised not to allow schools to serve as their exclusive NIL agent, as this could limit their opportunities and control over their own brand.
With the growing influence of NIL and revenue sharing, college athletics is undergoing a transformation, including the rise of new roles such as front office management or general management within athletic departments. This shift is bringing in new staff and expertise, reshaping the operational landscape of collegiate sports.
However, revenue-sharing poses significant challenges for international student-athletes on F-1 visas. While they can participate in back pay related to NIL, they cannot legally receive revenue share while enrolled. Even being on a team that offers revenue share could pose a problem, as the very act of competing could be considered “work,” which violates the terms of their visa. This has led some attorneys to advise their international clients to remove themselves from team rosters if revenue-sharing rules are enacted, as remaining on the team could jeopardize their visa status even if they do not accept the payments.
These issues underscore the complexities of implementing revenue-sharing models across diverse student populations and will likely lead to further legal and regulatory challenges as schools navigate these new systems.
How these issues are handled will ultimately vary from school to school, as each institution navigates revenue sharing, NIL agreements, and compliance with regulations like Title IX. With so many moving parts—from capping revenue-sharing years to the treatment of international athletes—there is no one-size-fits-all solution. As college athletics continues to evolve, only time will tell how schools adapt to these new realities. It will be interesting to see the different approaches and strategies that emerge in the future.