The NCAA and major college conferences are in the process of considering a possible settlement for an antitrust lawsuit that could result in billions of dollars in damages. This settlement could require schools to share athletics-related revenue with their athletes, potentially changing the landscape of collegiate athletics. While details of the settlement are not public, it is estimated that the NCAA could pay out $2.9 billion over 10 years, with schools in major conferences like the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, and SEC potentially contributing $30 million per year, including $20 million directed to athletes.
The lawsuit, known as House vs. the NCAA, is set to go to trial in January and focuses on the argument that college athletes should receive a portion of the media rights fees that go to conferences and the NCAA. The NCAA has been facing several antitrust challenges related to compensation and transfer rules, with House serving as a catalyst for action. College sports administrators see a settlement as the best course of action for this particular case. While the NCAA and conferences have sought help from Congress in the past, there has been little movement on a federal law to regulate compensation for athletes.
One potential hurdle for the NCAA and major conferences is the classification of college athletes as employees. Without Congressional intervention or an antitrust exemption, they may face more legal challenges in the future, especially considering ongoing lawsuits related to the employment status of athletes. A federal law denying employment status to college athletes could face court challenges without proper protections. A recent ruling allowing members of the Dartmouth men’s basketball team to vote on joining a union further highlights the evolving landscape of college athletics.
NCAA President Charlie Baker has proposed creating a new tier of Division I that would require schools to pay a minimum of $30,000 per year to at least half of their athletes in trust funds. Baker also suggested bringing NIL activities for athletes in-house instead of working with third-party entities. While this proposal is on hold, it indicates a potential shift towards increased payments for college athletes beyond scholarships. Colleges may soon have to consider some form of revenue-sharing agreement or larger payments to athletes, as the landscape of collegiate athletics continues to evolve.
Ultimately, a settlement in House could lead to significant changes in how college athletes are compensated and how revenue is shared within the NCAA and major conferences. The potential for more legal challenges and the classification of athletes as employees creates uncertainty for the future of college sports. While a settlement is not finalized, it highlights the need for collaboration between the NCAA, conferences, and Congress to address the evolving issues surrounding compensation and the rights of college athletes. As discussions continue, the landscape of collegiate athletics may be on the brink of significant changes.
