With any luck for NCAA athletes, the massive keggers haven't gotten past the planning stage, and nobody has gone to the dealership to put down a deposit on a Lamborghini in their school's colors yet. A week after a historic federal antitrust ruling eradicated the amateur model that kept college athletes from being paid by their schools for their participation in sports, the entire deal is facing a pause after eight athletes filed an appeal of House v. NCAA on June 13, 2025.
At issue are back payments for almost 400,000 former college athletes from three different class-action suits. A federal judge ruled that they were entitled to split a pool of $2.8 billion from the NCAA for the use of their names, images, and likenesses (NIL) while they represented their respective schools. Eight female athletes are appealing the decision, alleging that the backpay settlement amount will result in a $1.1 billion shortfall for scholar-athletes who suffered Title IX violations.
While the appeal will likely delay payments, another part of the agreement that allows Division I schools to pay as much as $20.5 million to their student-athletes will be allowed to continue unabated. Attorneys from both sides of the settlement agree that Title IX claims fall outside the ruling's purview.
That's My Name, Don't Wear It Out (Unless You Pay the Licensing Fee)
For almost a century, college athletes were prohibited from taking money or other goods as compensation for their athletics beyond the school paying for their education. Classifying the student-athletes as amateurs, the bastions of higher education were able to rake in massive amounts of money through popular sports like football and basketball. While many decried the system as unfair, it remained the same for decades.
The first crack in the NCAA's armor came through a lawsuit filed in 2009 by Edward O'Bannon, a former collegiate basketball player. O'Bannon claimed the NCAA's control of his NILs was an antitrust violation of the Sherman Act. U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken, who is also the judge responsible for the House v. NCAA verdict, ruled in 2015 that the NCAA policy on NILs was indeed in violation. Starting with California in 2019, states began to pass laws allowing college athletes to legally make money off their NILs. They started going into effect in 2022.
Under the new agreement, schools with Division I athletic programs can share up to $20.5 million in revenue with student-athletes. The allocations must still meet Title IV restrictions and are subject to approval from the newly formed College Sports Commission (CSC), which begins operation on July 1, 2025. The CSC is also responsible for examining all deals between student-athletes and third parties.
The $2.7 billion owed to former NCAA athletes is scheduled to be collected and paid off over the next decade, although that timeline may shift due to the appeal. The settlement had been delayed until a compromise on roster size limits for the "designated student-athletes" was implemented, which may trigger yet another lawsuit.
Equal Slices of the Pie
The emergence of NILs and the settlement ruling have sounded the death knell for the college "amateur athlete" system. There will undoubtedly be some bumps in the road going forward, but student athletes are celebrating the chance to get compensated for their hard work.
The eight scholar-athletes bringing the appeal are a mix of volleyball players, soccer players, and swimmers from Vanderbilt, the College of Charleston, and the University of Virginia. Since they filed objections to the settlement, they were determined to have standing for the appeal. Briefs are due by October 3, 2025. While the deadlines follow the letter of the law, those waiting for their piece of the settlement are likely unhappy with the case going into overtime.
Related Resources
- Athletic Scholarships: Legal Issues To Know (FindLaw's Higher Education Law)
- Could College Athletes Be Legally Classified as Employees? (FindLaw's Legally Weird)
- Title IX Remedies and Criticisms (FindLaw's Discrimination at School Law)
