Judge Claudia Wilken has approved the settlement in the House v. NCAA case – which now paves a pathway to allow colleges and universities to directly pay their athletes and changes the dynamic of American collegiate athletics forever.
A decade ago, college athletes were treated as amateurs and were not directly compensated for their contributions to athletic departments, nor were they able to be paid by outside companies.
With the rise of name, image, and likeness agreements in 2021, athletes could sign endorsement deals with companies and collectives of donors could pool money which could be given to athletes.
Now, with this landmark settlement, the NCAA’s member institutions will be allowed to pay their athletes directly in the form of revenue sharing agreements.
The focal point of this case began with Arizona State swimmer Grant House, who sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences at the time – the SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, ACC, and Pac-12 – to lift restrictions on revenue sharing.
Wilken gave approval to a final proposal after months of negotiating multiple finer points of the deal – including roster limits.
As part of the agreement, the NCAA will give up more than $2.7billion in back pay to thousands of former athletes who were barred from earning revenue over the years.
Over the next year, the House settlement will allow each school to share up to $20.5m a year with their athletes.
It now finally forces colleges and universities competing at the highest levels of the NCAA to face the reality that their players are responsible for the billions in television and other revenue from athletics each year.
Thanks to this settlement, college sports are now a fully and completely professional enterprise – with top stars in football and basketball specifically standing to gain the most on their paths to the NFL and NBA.
Wilken, who is now set to retire, is the same judge who ruled in the O’Bannon v. NCAA case which ruled that the collegiate sports governing body’s practice of preventing payments to athletes violated federal anti-trust laws.
MORE TO FOLLOW.
