LITIGATION TRENDS 2025 | 125 T O C E M P E S G A N T I I P C A P R O W C S P O R T C O N T A C T I N T A P P P A T C C L S E C status as athletes. But the NCAA’s position took a significant blow when the Supreme Court ruled in Alston v. NCAA in 2021 that the NCAA’s amateurism rules and restrictions on pay were not exempt from antitrust scrutiny and opened the door for compensation of college athletes. In the wake of the Alston decision and a series of state laws permitting college athletes to sign endorsement deals, the NCAA issued new rules that permitted athletes to collect payments based on use of their name, image, and likeness. House and his fellow plaintiffs argued that the NCAA and conferences owed the athletes back payments for depriving them of the same opportunities to earn money under the prior rules prohibiting those deals. In May of 2024, the NCAA announced that it had agreed with the athletes on terms of a settlement. The settlement proposes that the NCAA and conferences will pay nearly $2.8 billion in back-pay damages to athletes over a 10-year window, with the largest share of money to be distributed to football players and men’s and women’s basketball players. It also creates a go-forward framework for revenue sharing, under which athletes would share in a pool of revenue equal to 22% of the average revenue of the Power Five conferences. The revenue pool would include money from ticket sales, media rights, sponsorships and advertising, among other categories. The settlement also proposes to eliminate caps on scholarships. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of the settlement in October 2024 and held a final approval hearing in April 2025. At the final approval hearing, Judge Wilken expressed some ongoing concern about the roster limits contemplated by the settlement and the potential impacts on future college athletes and did not issue a decision. The outcome will be closely watched. Naturally, announcement of the settlement agreement has not put an end to litigation over compensation of college athletes. The settlement has come under fire from some who view the go-forward provisions as improperly imposing continued limitations on the total amount that schools can pay their athletes. Dozens of athletes have joined separate lawsuits filed in California and Kentucky that challenge the NCAA’s interim rules allowing name, image, and likeness payments, including restrictions that prevent sponsors from tying compensation to athletic performance. The House settlement, if approved, also looks likely to spawn Title IX litigation, as colleges and athletes grapple with whether distribution of the settlement funds and other name, image, and likeness payments must be proportionately divided among male and female athletes. In January 2025, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a fact sheet taking the position that a school’s distribution of name, image, and likeness payments must comply with Title IX, only for that guidance to be rescinded in February as the Trump Administration stepped into place. Female rowers and beach volleyball players at the University of Oregon have already filed a lawsuit challenging unequal distribution of name, image, and likeness payments, and we expect more litigation to follow. S T Naturally, announcement of the settlement agreement has not put an end to litigation over compensation of college athletes. The settlement has come under fire from some who view the go-forward provisions as improperly imposing continued limitations on the total amount that schools can pay their athletes. CROSS-PRACTICE FOCUS Sports 124 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI5NDgyMg==