By Andrew Boulton
(Editor’s Note: The following article summarizes the presentation of Megan L.W. Jerabek of von Briesen & Roper, delivered at Marquette University Law School during the National Sports Law Institute’s 36th Annual Fall Conference.)
College athletics is undergoing one of its most dramatic transformations in history. The combination of landmark court decisions, rapid policy shifts and evolving perspectives on athlete compensation have created a seismic shift in the way collegiate athletics are governed and financed. At the heart of these transformations are legal battles, particularly the Supreme Court’s National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) v. Alston decision and the sweeping settlement in the House v. NCAA case. Both dramatically reshape the landscape for athletes, institutions, and professionals who serve them.
Antitrust Meets Amateurism: Alston and the “Battle Royale”
The NCAA v. Alston case challenged NCAA’s eligibility rules, culminating in a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that brought the powerful organization squarely under the scope of antitrust law. The Court found that the NCAA’s restrictions on education-related compensation violated the Sherman Act, providing a clear path for future challenges to other competition rules. The decision was significant: for the first time, the Supreme Court clarified that NCAA compensation policies must be subject to standard “rule of reason” scrutiny, requiring legally valid procompetitive justifications for restrictions, similar to any other business entity.
Post-Alston, there are serious doubts whether the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules can survive legal scrutiny under this standard. Justice Kavanaugh raised concerns about the NCAA’s justification, or lack thereof, foreshadowing new legal battles.
A New Era: NCAA Suspends NIL Restrictions
Reacting quickly to the Alston decision, the NCAA adopted interim measures suspending Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation restrictions. Meanwhile, states enacted laws allowing college athletes to profit from their NIL, opening the door to dramatic changes. What had been unthinkable just a decade ago became reality. College athletes, often restricted from earning compensation, could now market themselves as brand, capitalizing on their fame and marketability.
Legal Showdown: Key Cases and Challenges
The years following, Alston saw a cascade of legal challenges attacking not just compensation rules, but also eligibility restrictions. Cases such as Tennessee, et al. v. NCAA, Ohio, et al. v. NCAA, and Diego Pavia v. NCAA divided courts on the issue of whether eligibility rules are “commercial” and thus subject to antitrust scrutiny. Rulings varied, with some courts upholding the NCAA’s stance and others ruling eligibility as commercial activity, making antitrust laws applicable. Temporary Restraining Orders and Injunctions were granted and denied across federal and state courts, highlighting the unresolved nature of these questions.
House v. NCAA: Revenue Sharing and the Dawn of the Post-House Era
If Alston cracked open the door to athlete compensation, House v. NCAA kicked it wide open. The class action lawsuit against the NCAA and Power Five Conferences challenged restrictions on NIL earnings and scholarship caps as unlawful restraints on trade. After several rounds of negotiations and judicial revision, Judge Wilken approved a settlement on June 6, 2025.
Key elements of the settlement include:
- Back damages for athletes who participated from 2016 to 2025, totaling approximately $2.8 billion paid over 10 years, most to football and basketball athletes.
- Direct NIL payments from institutions to athletes, capped at 22% of qualified athletic revenue (estimated $20.5 million per institution in year one).
- Mandatory reporting of NIL earnings over $600 by all Division I athletes, along with heightened oversight.
- Elimination of scholarship limits in favor of sport-specific roster limits.
A new College Sports Commission was created to enforce settlement provisions, with heightened scrutiny of booster and collective NIL payments to ensure they meet fair market value and valid business purposes. The agreed cap on the pool increases annually, projected to hit $32.9 million by 2035.
Uncertainty and Opportunity in the Wake of Settlement
The settlement has raised questions for the future of collegiate sports:
- How will athletic department budgets adapt?
- What legal challenges remain?
- Will federal legislation further change the playing field?
- How will NCAA bylaws evolve?
NIL and Revenue Sharing: Navigating Money and Sports as Young Adults
For student-athletes, the new era presents both extraordinary opportunities and complex challenges. Estimated revenue sharing payments for 2025-26 stand at $146,151 for football players and $218,611 for men’s basketball players. Top earners could see combined compensation of $38.2 million, with total NIL spend projected at $2.75 billion, $1.5 billion from institutions and $1.2 billion from commercial deals.
The need for professional assistance is greater than ever. Many athletes must assemble teams of marketing agents, accountants, wealth advisors, and attorneys, often with little guidance from institutions that are themselves scrambling to keep up. There are few mandatory registration requirements for NIL agents, and no existing standard contracts, creating a patchwork landscape for athletes and professionals alike.
Professionalization and Education: Building the Bench
Institutions are increasingly investing in NIL education, but help procuring outside professionals is inconsistent. As revenue sharing grows, athletes’ needs expand to banking, wealth management, marketing, branding, tax advice, and even philanthropic planning.
Conclusion: Into the Deep End, The Future of College Sports
The seismic shift in college athletics propelled by the Alston and House decisions has ushered in a new paradigm: athletes as compensated professionals, institutions as direct payers, and a growing community of legal and financial advisors guiding the way. The once-clear boundary between amateur and professional sports is now as fluid as the multi-billion-dollar flows shaping the industry.
As NCAA bylaws are rewritten and new legal battles loom, the only certainty is change, and the best-prepared athletes, institutions, and advisors will be those who embrace the collaborative, professional approach that defines the new era.
Andrew Boulton is a law student at Marquette University. Prior to attending Marquette, he earned a bachelor’s in political science and Master’s in Business Administration at the University of Findlay.
