House v. NCAA settlement approved: Landmark decision opens door for revenue sharing in college athletics

[HooperScooper]

Let the revenue sharing begin. At least there are some rules and guardrails with this system rather than the Wild, Wild West of NIL. Hopefully it does somewhat favor the men's basketball teams in the Big East as those recent articles described.

The NCAA's 119-year amateurism model died Friday with a judge's pen as the landmark House v. NCAA antitrust settlement received final approval, opening the door for millions of dollars to be shared between schools and players for the first time.

How revenue-sharing will affect skyrocketing NIL deals among third parties is unknown. Still, those deals with third parties and collectives outside the revenue-sharing plan will soon face intense scrutiny from a new enforcement entity starting July 1. Experts believe it will help curb "pay-for-play" schemes between boosters and players far beyond perceived market values. Many multi-million dollar deals with high-profile players were struck in the months before the House settlement's approval so that those deals would not be scrutinized by the enforcement entity, which does not have authority until July 1.

House v. NCAA settlement approved: Landmark decision opens door for revenue sharing in college athletics

A federal judge granted final approval for the $2.8 billion lawsuit Friday evening

www.cbssports.com

 

[Fishy]

Time to fire up the lawsuits about the lawsuit.

 

[auror]

Time to fire up the lawsuits about the lawsuit.

The judge to the NCAA about their attempts to curtail booster activity and limit NIL deals to fair market value:
"Not in my purview, good luck!

 

[willie99]

I'm waiting for the cliff notes

Or should I say AI?

 

[DFW HOYA]

"The NCAA's 119-year amateurism model died Friday with a judge's pen as the landmark House v. NCAA antitrust settlement received final approval, opening the door for millions of dollars to be shared between schools and players for the first time."

Hyperbole?

 

[ecasadoSBU]

I just hope the revenue sharing somehow reduces the outrageous coaching salaries and levels things out a bit on that front...

but I'm probably being foolish

 

[champs99and04]

How revenue-sharing will affect skyrocketing NIL deals among third parties is unknown. Still, those deals with third parties and collectives outside the revenue-sharing plan will soon face intense scrutiny from a new enforcement entity starting July 1. Experts believe it will help curb "pay-for-play" schemes between boosters and players far beyond perceived market values. Many multi-million dollar deals with high-profile players were struck in the months before the House settlement's approval so that those deals would not be scrutinized by the enforcement entity, which does not have authority until July 1.

People will question whether this entity has any teeth, but that might be beside the point. I've always believed that the boosters themselves have been the loudest advocates for clamping down on pay-for-play NIL money. They want nothing to do with funding the endless arms wars for middling talent that this version of NIL has cast upon them, and the emergence of this new perceived authority gives them cover. Whether the SMU's of the world can be stymied in their quest to build a perennial power with glorified slush funds is another matter.

 

[Chin Diesel]

"The NCAA's 119-year amateurism model died Friday with a judge's pen as the landmark House v. NCAA antitrust settlement received final approval, opening the door for millions of dollars to be shared between schools and players for the first time."

Hyperbole?

It was more on life support than living over the past decade.

 

[CL82]

"Experts believe it will help curb "pay-for-play" schemes between boosters and players far beyond perceived market values"

I haven't read the decision yet, and probably won't, but it seems to me that it's doing just the opposite. It's codifying a pay for play scheme. I also don't see how the judgment impacts NIL at all. We now have a system that universities can pay their athletes, but third-party NIL deals are still available.

I feel like this is just another step in the end of college athletics as we understand it and the beginning of a new semipro arrangement that won't be anywhere near as engaging.

 

[husky429]

"The NCAA's 119-year amateurism model died Friday with a judge's pen as the landmark House v. NCAA antitrust settlement received final approval, opening the door for millions of dollars to be shared between schools and players for the first time."

Hyperbole?

Not really. But it was on life support for a while now.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

I haven't read the decision yet, and probably won't, but it seems to me that it's doing just the opposite. It's codifying a pay for play scheme. I also don't see how the judgment impacts NIL at all. We now have a system that universities can pay their athletes, but third-party NIL deals are still available.

I feel like this is just another step in the end of college athletics as we understand it and the beginning of a new semipro arrangement that won't be anywhere near as engaging.

I agree. I don’t see how this limits the arms race at all. Supposedly there’s an “NIL Go” program that will aim to limit NIL to “market value” which I have no clue how you do that when you can argue a guy like Arch Manning is worth a blank check. The one thing I found interesting is that the P4 admin are happy about this. Idk if that’s a good thing or bad thing for college sports.

 

[CL82]

I agree. I don’t see how this limits the arms race at all. Supposedly there’s an “NIL Go” program that will aim to limit NIL to “market value” which I have no clue how you do that when you can argue a guy like Arch Manning is worth a blank check. The one thing I found interesting is that the P4 admin are happy about this. Idk if that’s a good thing or bad thing for college sports.

Oh, I think you know.

I also don't see how the judgment impacts NIL at all. We now have a system that universities can pay their athletes, but third-party NIL deals are still available. Yes they have to be reported, but Deloitte has said they don't determine fair market value.

What's the definition of "fair market value"? "One an informed buyer would pay to an informed seller, both being reasonably aware of all the facts involved in the transaction." So fair market value is basically whatever the market will bear.

 

[superjohn]

If players are going to be getting paid all this money by Universities and by third parties why doesn't the NBA and NFL set out to destroy college sports? Some players are going to be opting in to stay longer in college because the money is so good.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

If players are going to be getting paid all this money by Universities and by third parties why doesn't the NBA and NFL set out to destroy college sports? Some players are going to be opting in to stay longer in college because the money is so good.

I wonder if those leagues will go the MLB/NHL/Soccer route where you can draft players and leave them in college. Honestly what’s the point of the G League anymore?

 

[husky429]

I wonder if those leagues will go the MLB/NHL/Soccer route where you can draft players and leave them in college. Honestly what’s the point of the G League anymore?

College players who are out of eligibility. Gonna be a HUGE paycut for guys who can't make the league but were college stars

 

[HooperScooper]

The biggest winners and losers in this?

Winner: Big East basketball​

Much of the House settlement focus will be on football but the Big East has set itself up well to benefit in college basketball. We've already seen Big East schools work an advantage headed into the 2025-26 season, committing more revenue share money for men's basketball than many of their peers because they don't have to worry about spending tens of millions on football.

In theory, at least, Big East schools could spend the entire $20.5 million salary cap on just basketball. Or, more realistically, spend $8-10 million when schools in the Big Ten and SEC are largely in the $2.5-$4 million range. There has been talk about some conferences trying to instill sport-specific spending caps, but there is real skepticism that would fly sport-wide. Assuming it doesn't, the Big East, as long as its schools can come up with the cash without the big football-driven TV rights deals, could have a significant money advantage in revenue share spending.

The biggest winners and losers from House v. NCAA settlement: Amateurism is dead and the class divide grows

Down to the availability of all "student-athletes" to enjoy the free dining, college athletics will never be the same

www.cbssports.com

 

[HooperScooper]

Oh, I think you know.

I also don't see how the judgment impacts NIL at all. We now have a system that universities can pay their athletes, but third-party NIL deals are still available. Yes they have to be reported, but Deloitte has said they don't determine fair market value.

What's the definition of "fair market value"? "One an informed buyer would pay to an informed seller, both being reasonably aware of all the facts involved in the transaction." So fair market value is basically whatever the market will bear.

Loser: Renegade boosters​

The early years of NIL featured unique characters like Miami booster John Ruiz who weren't shy about being willing to spend big money to see their favorite teams win. The money has exploded in recent years from the reported $20 million Ohio State team that won the national championship last season to the $40 million roster era as Indiana's Curt Cignetti told CBS Sports this spring. In theory, those days are over.

Yes, there is considerable industry skepticism about how a clearinghouse called NIL Go will actually hold up to legal scrutiny and stop boosters from using NIL solely as "pay to play," but if it does work, as the NCAA and Power Four conferences desperately hope it does, the days of spending $3 million on a defensive end for NIL will be over and eliminate an advantage schools with especially well-heeled boosters have exploited the last four years.

One additional note here: Schools that can tap into local businesses willing to spend real NIL money will be at a big advantage if NIL is strictly policed for "fair market value" as the clearinghouse intends. If your school campus happens to be located in a lucrative metro area, even better.

The biggest winners and losers from House v. NCAA settlement: Amateurism is dead and the class divide grows

Down to the availability of all "student-athletes" to enjoy the free dining, college athletics will never be the same

www.cbssports.com

 

[DogMania]

So, if this settlement doesn't impact NIL deals completed before July 1st, are we going to see some last minute money grabs, I mean deals, completed by the end of the month?

Now might be a good time to wrap up a deal on that 3rd big that we think the staff still sees as a need. Tell those who they are targeting, here's what we can spend now, but that might not be available after June 30th. Note I realize we're not talking big NIL for a development big, but whatever UConn is willing to offer, some of it might come off the table if not taken while it's available.

Now with that said, I have no idea how all this will work, but nonetheless the staff still might be able to play that card and prospective portal holdouts might believe it.

 

[auror]

So, if this settlement doesn't impact NIL deals completed before July 1st, are we going to see some last minute money grabs, I mean deals, completed by the end of the month?

Now might be a good time to wrap up a deal on that 3rd big that we think the staff still sees as a need. Tell those who they are targeting, here's what we can spend now, but that might not be available after June 30th. Note I realize we're not talking big NIL for a development big, but whatever UConn is willing to offer, some of it might come off the table if not taken while it's available.

Now with that said, I have no idea how all this will work, but nonetheless the staff still might be able to play that card and prospective portal holdouts might believe it.

It starts affecting 3rd party deals June 11th when the NIL Go platform goes live. But yeah, teams have known this was likely coming so I'm sure this approach has been tried.

 

[Ha Who]

The biggest winners and losers in this?

Winner: Big East basketball​

Much of the House settlement focus will be on football but the Big East has set itself up well to benefit in college basketball. We've already seen Big East schools work an advantage headed into the 2025-26 season, committing more revenue share money for men's basketball than many of their peers because they don't have to worry about spending tens of millions on football.

In theory, at least, Big East schools could spend the entire $20.5 million salary cap on just basketball. Or, more realistically, spend $8-10 million when schools in the Big Ten and SEC are largely in the $2.5-$4 million range. There has been talk about some conferences trying to instill sport-specific spending caps, but there is real skepticism that would fly sport-wide. Assuming it doesn't, the Big East, as long as its schools can come up with the cash without the big football-driven TV rights deals, could have a significant money advantage in revenue share spending.

The biggest winners and losers from House v. NCAA settlement: Amateurism is dead and the class divide grows

Down to the availability of all "student-athletes" to enjoy the free dining, college athletics will never be the same

www.cbssports.com

The cartel will fix this

 

[HooperScooper]

The cartel will fix this

Unfortunately you’re probably right. If the Big East teams start gaining an advantage I can definitely see the SEC and B1G trying to change things to take that away.

 

[huskymedic]

The biggest winners and losers in this?

Winner: Big East basketball​

Much of the House settlement focus will be on football but the Big East has set itself up well to benefit in college basketball. We've already seen Big East schools work an advantage headed into the 2025-26 season, committing more revenue share money for men's basketball than many of their peers because they don't have to worry about spending tens of millions on football.

In theory, at least, Big East schools could spend the entire $20.5 million salary cap on just basketball. Or, more realistically, spend $8-10 million when schools in the Big Ten and SEC are largely in the $2.5-$4 million range. There has been talk about some conferences trying to instill sport-specific spending caps, but there is real skepticism that would fly sport-wide. Assuming it doesn't, the Big East, as long as its schools can come up with the cash without the big football-driven TV rights deals, could have a significant money advantage in revenue share spending.

The biggest winners and losers from House v. NCAA settlement: Amateurism is dead and the class divide grows

Down to the availability of all "student-athletes" to enjoy the free dining, college athletics will never be the same

www.cbssports.com

 

[champs99and04]

Not that the catholic schools don't have an agenda of their own, but UConn's not exactly a beacon of credibility on this topic. It has more to lose than anyone if things keep trending this way because it's the only major school that's continually half-assed its way into big time college football. Hard decisions loom for the school if this continues to play out like we think it might.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

The cartel will fix this

Remember - the cartel is not above the law.

Any attempt to cap revenue based on specific sports will end up in lawsuits.

In a free-market scenario a school should be able to share all the revenue created by a given program (sport) with the athletes that helped generate that revenue. The more you limit this the more you are artificially capping revenue opportunities for athletes and thus it should open it to lawsuits. That's my laymen opinion at least. I have no expertise to back this up

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

The biggest winners and losers in this?

Winner: Big East basketball​

Much of the House settlement focus will be on football but the Big East has set itself up well to benefit in college basketball. We've already seen Big East schools work an advantage headed into the 2025-26 season, committing more revenue share money for men's basketball than many of their peers because they don't have to worry about spending tens of millions on football.

In theory, at least, Big East schools could spend the entire $20.5 million salary cap on just basketball. Or, more realistically, spend $8-10 million when schools in the Big Ten and SEC are largely in the $2.5-$4 million range. There has been talk about some conferences trying to instill sport-specific spending caps, but there is real skepticism that would fly sport-wide. Assuming it doesn't, the Big East, as long as its schools can come up with the cash without the big football-driven TV rights deals, could have a significant money advantage in revenue share spending.

The biggest winners and losers from House v. NCAA settlement: Amateurism is dead and the class divide grows

Down to the availability of all "student-athletes" to enjoy the free dining, college athletics will never be the same

www.cbssports.com

I've not been convinced that the Big East will top to bottom have an advantage - UConn, St John's seem "in" to spend. Marquette doesn't seem in. There are several others that are definitely not in, including Seton Hall. Time will tell.