Written By: Cole D. Mathews
The legal landscape of college sports has changed drastically in the wake of recent
developments involving the payment of student athletes. While these changes have caused
uncertainty regarding the rights and protections afforded to college athletes, a settlement decision by Judge Claudia Wilken in the Northern District of California could soon provide some much needed clarity.
In the seminal House v. NCAA case, plaintiffs Grant House and Sedona Prince filed an
antitrust suit against the NCAA on behalf of a class of current and former Division I athletes.
Their claims primarily challenged NCAA rules that “‘prohibit student-athletes from receiving
anything of value in exchange for the commercial use’ of their name, images, and likenesses
(NIL).” Since filing suit, the parties have engaged in prolonged settlement negotiations.
Currently, the terms of the proposed settlement involve 1) A $20.5 million cap on revenue sharing payments by Division I schools directly to student athletes starting July 1, 2025,
2) $2.77 billion in back payments to former Division I student athletes who played between 2016 and 2024, 3) a requirement that college athletes report NIL deals paid by sources outside of the university exceeding $600 to a third party for “increased scrutiny, reporting, and
fair-market-value assessment requirements,” 4) limitations on roster sizes, and 5) unlimited scholarships.
I. Roster Size Limitations
While Judge Wilken has preliminarily approved many of the key terms of the settlement,
she has ordered the NCAA to resolve issues regarding the limitations on roster sizes before
granting final approval. Specifically, she has asked that the NCAA amend the roster size
limitation in the settlement in a way that protects current collegiate athletes and graduating high school seniors who have been promised roster spots. Prior to the most recent amendment, the roster size limitations would force universities to cut current members of their teams, and to potentially rescind roster spots that had been offered to high school seniors to be in compliance with the settlement. Judge Wilken asked the NCAA to amend the roster limitation term to allow these players to be “grandfathered” into the terms of the settlement, and thus remain on the roster without affecting the team’s compliance with the roster limitations.
On May 7, the NCAA and Power 4 conferences filed an amendment to the settlement that
allows players that were cut by the schools in anticipation of the settlement, current roster
members, and prospective high school seniors to be “grandfathered” into the roster, and thus
exempted from counting towards their team’s roster limit. Further, under the NCAA’s proposed
amendment, if a “grandfathered” player were to transfer schools, they would maintain their
protected status at their new school. However, the NCAA’s proposed amendment allows schools
that cut student athletes from their roster in anticipation of the settlement to refuse to allow the players to rejoin the team, even though they would not count towards the team’s roster limit.
Opponents of the NCAA’s proposed amendment argue that it does not go far enough in
protecting players who had been anticipatorily cut by schools. They contend that the universities should still be able to cut student athletes as they previously had been able to, but that the school’s reason for cutting the player has to be distinct from the proposed roster limitations. Thus, they argue that players who were cut solely to accommodate the impending settlement should be able to return to their old school and maintain their roster spot without affording the university the discretion to refuse their request.
In her order, Judge Wilken specifically asked that the NCAA “modify the settlement
agreement so that the student athletes will not be harmed by the immediate implementation of
the roster limits provision.” While the NCAA’s proposed amendment does prevent current
student athletes from being squeezed out of college sports altogether, it places certain college
athletes in a tough situation where they must either transfer to continue to play sports, or
continue to attend the school they are currently attending as a regular student. This result seems backwards, especially considering that under the NCAA’s amendment, the school would be in compliance with the roster limits regardless of whether the student athlete was allowed back on the team. The NCAA’s amendment places the rights of the universities above the rights of the student-athletes, and it is tough to see a scenario in which Judge Wilkin does not see this
amendment as placing more hardship on the student athletes than necessary.
II. The Future for the NCAA
In the near future, Judge Wilken will determine whether the NCAA’s amendments to the
roster size limitations are sufficient to ameliorate her concerns. Given Judge Wilken’s prior
disapproval with the harms caused to players by the proposed roster limitations, it is tough to
imagine that she would approve of a system that potentially forces players to decide between
going to the school they chose to attend or playing the sport that they love. This is especially true considering the players were cut from their original team through no fault of their own, and the school no longer derives the benefit of coming into compliance with the terms of the settlement by cutting the player.
It would likely be in the best interest of the NCAA to amend this settlement to require the
universities that anticipatorily cut student athletes to accept those athletes back on their team.
The protection of the student athlete is a key aspect of this case that Judge Wilken has
specifically highlighted, and making this amendment seems like the NCAA’s best chance at
getting this crucial settlement approved. As Judge Wilken has preliminarily accepted a majority
of the key terms of the settlement, including $2.77 billion in back pay and $20.5 million in
university revenue sharing, the roster limitation provisions seem like a secondary point in the
grand scheme of things. After all of the great progress that the parties have made in mutually
coming to an agreement and mapping out the future of college sports, temporary roster
limitations should not be where the parties draw the line. This settlement could be the crucial
next step for the future of college sports, but further amendments by the NCAA are likely
required before anything is set in stone.
Sources:
Attorneys Handling NCAA Settlement Propose Do-Over on Roster Limits, ESPN, (May 7, 2025).
Brandon Marcello, $2.8 Billion House v. NCAA Settlement Hangs in Balance as Attorneys File Brief to Address Roster-Limit Concern, CBS Sports (May 7, 2025).
Brief on House v. NCAA settlement (February 12, 2025), In re: Coll. Athlete NIL Litig. House v. NCAA, 545 F. Supp 804, (N.D. Ca. 2021).
House v. NCAA, 545 F. Supp 804, (N.D. Ca. 2021).
Trent Wood, How the Objectors to the Revised House Settlement Want Roster Limits to Work in College Athletics, Deseret News (May 14, 2025).