House settlement explained: How Louisville Cardinals, Kentucky Wildcats would be impacted
Roughly five years after its initial filing, the House v. NCAA settlement is still awaiting a decision from the courts.
It's one of the most talked-about lawsuits in the history of college athletics. And for good reason. If approved, the settlement would establish a first-of-its-kind revenue-sharing model between schools and athletes.
Advertisement
Industry leaders have been operating for months under the assumption that the agreement would go through this spring and go into effect July 1, including those at the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky. But they've yet to receive the all-clear.
Here's everything you need to know about the settlement, including how Kentucky's two major schools are planning for two different futures: one where the agreement is approved and one where it's not.
What is the House v. NCAA settlement?
The proposed House settlement stems from the merging of three different lawsuits filed by current and former Division I athletes against the NCAA: House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA.
Advertisement
Plaintiffs Grant House (former Arizona State swimmer) and Sedona Prince (former Texas, Oregon and TCU basketball player) filed a class-action complaint in June 2020 alleging that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by restricting athletes' ability to profit off their name, image and likeness. Former Oklahoma State running back Chuba Hubbard and former Duke defensive tackle DeWayne Carter filed similar complaints against the NCAA and power conferences. Judge Claudia Wilken, who previously presided over the Alston v. NCAA lawsuit finding the NCAA in violation of antitrust laws by capping the value of athletic scholarships, later consolidated the House suit with Hubbard and Carter.
On Oct. 7, Wilken granted the House settlement preliminary approval. That version of the settlement would provide $2.8 billion in back damages to athletes who could not profit off their NIL between 2016 and Sept. 15, 2024. It would also bring revenue sharing to college sports starting July 1 with a projected cap for 2025-26 of $20.5 million per school. But one aspect of the agreement has delayed her final decision by nearly two months.
Instead of scholarship limits, the version of the House settlement Wilken granted preliminary approval to established roster caps. Objectors spoke out against roster limits at the April 7 final approval hearing in Oakland, California. Afterward, Wilken gave attorneys two weeks to amend the roster limit concept. She suggested grandfathering in athletes already on existing rosters. Executives from the Power Four conferences — Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 — agreed to an optional grandfathering-in model for schools.
The settlement has been back in Wilken's hands since May 16.
How will settlement money be distributed?
As the settlement currently stands, $2.8 billion would be provided to college athletes who could not profit off their NIL between 2016 and Sept. 15, 2024. These athletes had to file objections to or claims to be part of the settlement before Jan. 31. About 40,000 filed claims suggesting they would participate in the settlement, Front Office Sports reported in February.
Advertisement
The backpay is to be doled out over 10 years — 60% by the NCAA from its reserves and 40% from schools.
In addition to damages, the House settlement would bring revenue sharing to college sports starting July 1 with a projected cap for 2025-26 of $20.5 million per school. How that money is divvied up will be left to individual institutions.
Louisville athletics director Josh Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings that U of L knows how it will distribute the $20.5 million among its varsity sports but declined to share exact numbers. Kentucky athletics director Mitch Barnhart told the CJ at SEC spring meetings that, rather than establishing firm percentages for each program, Kentucky will take a less rigid approach to meet each sport's needs year in and year out.
Front Office Sports reported that power conference schools are expected to dedicate 75% of the $20.5 million toward their football programs. Texas Tech's reported breakdown gives 74% to football, 17% to 18% to men's basketball, 2% to women's basketball, 1.8% to baseball and the rest to other sports. That's $15.17 million for football, $3.69 million for men's basketball and $410,000 for women's basketball.
How much are college athletes getting paid?
College athletes would make money through revenue-sharing agreements with their schools and still be eligible for third-party NIL deals if the settlement is approved. However, the NIL market would be more heavily monitored than it is now under an enforcement structure that some industry leaders are skeptical of.
Advertisement
All NIL deals exceeding $600 will have to be reported to and pass through a clearinghouse called 'NIL go,' starting three days after the settlement is approved. NIL go will be operated by Deloitte with the purpose of assessing athletes' fair market value.
Officials from the clearinghouse have been sharing data about past deals with athletics directors and coaches over the last several weeks, including
70% of agreements from collectives would not have passed through NIL go;
80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000;
And 99% of those deals were valued at less than $100,000
Those numbers are a far cry from the millions collectives have reportedly spent on athletes over the last four years or so. Restricting compensation in this way feels, to some, like a bit of a step backward.
'They're just encouraging people to cheat again,' Dan Furman, president of Louisville's official collective 502Circle, told The Courier Journal.
Advertisement
SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey spoke about the clearinghouse at spring meetings. When asked directly if he had confidence in these guardrails, Sankey said yes.
"People are going to have opinions," he said. "Nothing ever worked when people sat around and said, 'Well, this won't work.' We're adults, we're leaders, and I think I communicated this (recently), we have a responsibility to make this work."
Why roster limits are delaying Judge Claudia Wilken's decision?
Instead of scholarship limits, the version of the House settlement Wilken granted preliminary approval to established roster caps. This structure would cause thousands of athletes across the country to lose their spots — mainly in football and Olympic sports. Objectors spoke out against roster limits at the final approval hearing in Oakland on April 7.
Advertisement
Wilken told attorneys they needed to fix this issue or else she would reject the settlement. She suggested grandfathering in athletes already on existing rosters. Executives from the Power Four conferences came back with an optional grandfathering-in model for schools.
Objectors then argued for mandatory grandfathering, but lawyers from the NCAA and power conferences maintained that their proposal should satisfy Wilken's demands and solicit approval.
What does Kentucky's NIL bill say?
Several states have laws permitting schools to directly pay college athletes — including Kentucky. The commonwealth passed Senate Bill 3 in March, amending its previous NIL legislation so state universities could legally operate within the House settlement's proposed revenue-sharing model.
Advertisement
Ross Dellenger of Yahoo! Sports reported in early May that athletics directors predict many schools will use state law to begin paying athletes, regardless of whether Wilken denies the settlement. One AD told Yahoo!: 'What can the NCAA do about it?'
What will Louisville do if Judge Claudia Wilken rejects House v. NCAA settlement?
If Wilken denies the settlement, U of L will likely move forward with paying its athletes directly, Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings.
'That's probably the path we would go down,' Heird said. 'Just from the standpoint of the more control you can have of the situation, the better. It's been a little bit disjointed with outside entities, collectives, doing things. So I would presume that's the road we would go down.'
Advertisement
Should the settlement get denied, U of L wouldn't be beholden to the $20.5 million cap. Instead, paying athletes would just 'be a budget constraint,' Heird said. 'But I'd contend it's a budget constraint now.'
What is Kentucky's NIL budget?
UK, like all other universities, will be limited to $20.5 million to share with its athletes under the settlement's current terms. This $20.5 million represents 22% of the average revenue of power conference schools and Notre Dame across eight categories, including but not limited to ticket sales and media rights. UK totaled $129.2 million across those categories, according to its 2023-24 NCAA financial report.
Barnhart told The Courier Journal at SEC spring meetings that, rather than establishing firm percentages of the $20.5 million for each program, Kentucky will take a less rigid approach to meet each sport's needs year in and year out.
What is Louisville's NIL budget?
U of L, like all other universities, will be limited to $20.5 million to share with its athletes under the settlement's current terms. This $20.5 million represents 22% of the average revenue of power conference schools and Notre Dame across eight categories, including but not limited to ticket sales and media rights. Louisville totaled $105.5 million across those categories, according to its 2023-24 NCAA financial report.
Advertisement
Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings that U of L knows how it will distribute the $20.5 million among its varsity sports but declined to share exact numbers.
Reach college sports enterprise reporter Payton Titus at ptitus@gannett.com, and follow her on X @petitus25.
This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: What is the House settlement? How U of L, UK would be impacted

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Urges Americans Take Action to ‘Kill' Trump Tax Cut Bill
(Bloomberg) -- Elon Musk is on a mission to block President Donald Trump's tax bill after he tried — and failed — to convince Republican lawmakers to preserve valuable tax credits for electric vehicles in the legislation, according to a person familiar with the matter. ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars NYC Residents Want Safer Streets, Cheaper Housing, Survey Says At London's New Design Museum, Visitors Get Hands-On Access The Buffalo Architect Fighting for Women in Design The Tesla Inc. chief executive officer personally appealed to House Speaker Mike Johnson to save the tax credit, the person said, requesting anonymity to discuss a private conversation. The House version of the tax measure calls for largely ending the popular $7,500 electric car subsidies by the end of 2025. Since losing that battle, Musk ratcheted up his offensive against the president's signature legislation on Wednesday, urging that Americans contact their lawmakers to 'KILL' the legislation, pinning his opposition to the bill's $2.4 trillion price tag. 'Call your Senator, Call your Congressman,' Musk wrote in a social media post. 'Bankrupting America is NOT ok!' The post came one day after Musk lashed out at the tax bill, describing it as a budget-busting 'disgusting abomination' as Republican fiscal hawks stepped up criticism of the massive fiscal package. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment. NBC News reported earlier on Musk's overture to Johnson. Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who voted against the measure, defended Musk, saying in a post on X: 'He knows if America collapses financially, we aren't making it to Mars. He's right.' Trump hasn't publicly responded to Musk's comments, but the White House put out a statement Wednesday saying the legislation 'unleashes an era of unprecedented economic growth.' Tensions between Musk and the White House have flared in recent days after the tech titan formally stepped down from his role leading Trump's federal cost-cutting effort, the Department of Government Efficiency. After a meeting with Trump and Republican senators at the White House on Wednesday evening, Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas told Bloomberg Television that 'Elon was not important at all as far as this conversation goes.' Earlier, Johnson told reporters that Musk was 'dead wrong' about the bill and that the tax cuts would pay for themselves through economic growth. Musk's public condemnation pits him against the president at a critical time as Trump is personally lobbying holdouts on the bill. His campaign against the legislation threatens to stiffen resistance and delay enactment of the tax cuts and debt ceiling increase. Musk has attacked the legislation days after leaving a temporary assignment leading the administration's Department of Government Efficiency initiative to cut federal spending. The Tesla Inc. chief executive officer's high-profile role in the Trump administration eroded his business brand and sales of his company's electric vehicles plunged. The House-passed version of the tax and spending bill would add $2.4 trillion to US budget deficits over the next decade, according to an estimate released Wednesday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO's calculation reflects a $3.67 trillion decrease in expected revenues and a $1.25 trillion decline in spending over the decade through 2034, relative to baseline projections. The score doesn't account for any potential boost to the economy from the bill, which Johnson and Trump argue would offset the revenue losses. Johnson said Musk had promised to help reelect Republicans just a day before savaging Trump's bill, adding that he did not want to ascribe a personal motive. Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Separately, Jared Isaacman, a financial technology billionaire, appeared to suggest Trump withdrew his nomination to run NASA because of his close ties to Musk. 'There were some people that had some axes to grind, I guess, and I was a good visible target,' Isaacman said on an episode of the All-In Podcast released on Wednesday. His ouster was driven by Sergio Gor, the head of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, according to people familiar with the matter. Gor and Musk had butted heads during the billionaire's tenure running the Department of Government Efficiency, the people said, and Gor moved to have Isaacman's nomination withdrawn after Musk pulled back from the administration. A White House spokesperson said Trump ultimately makes the decisions regarding who will serve in his administration. Musk, the world's richest man with a net worth of about $377 billion according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, has become a crucial financial backer of the Republican party. After making modest donations most years, Musk became the biggest US political donor in 2024, giving more than $290 million. Most of Musk's political giving was aimed at electing Trump but he also supported congressional candidates. America PAC, the super political action committee that Musk largely funded, spent $18.5 million in 17 separate House races. Though that total pales in comparison to the roughly $255 million he spent backing Trump, the spending means a lot in a congressional election, where challengers on average raise less than $1 million. Control of the House will likely be decided by the outcome of fewer than two dozen close races in the 2026 midterm elections. The GOP's chances of holding their majority would suffer a major blow if Musk were to withdraw his financial support. --With assistance from Bill Allison, Kailey Leinz, Joe Mathieu and Ari Natter. (Updates with Thomas Massie comment, in seventh paragraph.) Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Hamilton Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Thune's first big test as Senate leader has arrived with Trump's tax bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — Only six months into the job, Senate Majority Leader John Thune faces a massive challenge as he tries to quickly push President Donald Trump's sprawling tax and spending cuts package to passage with the support of a divided GOP conference. While most Republican senators are inclined to vote for the bill, Thune can stand to lose only four votes in the face of united Democratic opposition — and many more Republicans than that are critical of the version sent over by the House. To get it done by July 4 — Trump's deadline — Thune has to figure out how to balance the various, and sometimes conflicting, demands emerging from his members. And he has to do it in a way that doesn't endanger Republican support in the House, which passed the legislation by only one vote last month after weeks of contentious negotiations. It's a complicated and risky undertaking, one that is likely to define the first year of Thune's tenure and make or break his evolving relationship with Trump. 'This is when John's leadership is going to be desperately needed,' said North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, one of the Republican holdouts who is pushing back on the bill's quick phaseout of certain energy tax credits. 'You can say no all you want, as long as you don't say no to the wrong 51 people.' So far, the well-liked South Dakota Republican is in a good place, both with colleagues and the White House. Thune has worked closely with Trump, despite a rockier relationship at the end of Trump's first term. While acknowledging that the Senate will likely change the bill to address concerns about changes to Medicaid and other programs, Thune has repeatedly said that 'failure is not an option.' 'Individual pieces of it people don't like,' Thune said Tuesday. 'But in the end, we have to succeed.' To get there, Thune has been meeting in his office with senators to hear them out, bringing in his colleagues individually and in small groups to discuss portions of the bill. Republican senators say the outreach is a stark change from his predecessor, Mitch McConnell, who was more feared than loved and kept a tight circle of advisers. McConnell stepped down from the leadership post in January after almost two decades amid a series of health episodes and growing criticism from senators on the right flank, who felt that he consolidated power and ignored their concerns. 'It's very much a change,' said North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer. Thune has 'already made a lot of people happier by the listening part,' he said. One happier senator is Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who sparred openly with McConnell and ran against Thune to replace him. Scott, who criticizes the bill as not doing enough to cut federal spending, has also met with the new leader. 'I'd be very surprised if anybody doesn't believe he's receptive to their ideas,' Scott said of Thune. And when people feel heard, Scott said, 'there's a greater chance they will go along with something.' Thune has also carefully navigated his relationship with the president, after sharply criticizing Trump in 2020 for trying to overturn his election defeat. Trump declined to endorse Thune's reelection bid two years later. Thune endorsed South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott over Trump in the presidential primary before eventually endorsing Trump. The two made amends in the final months of Trump's presidential campaign and have since forged a working relationship of mutual benefit. Thune has stayed in close touch with the White House, visiting Trump several times to discuss the bill, including on Wednesday. While the collaborative approach has won favor from Trump and colleagues who were agitating for a change, Thune has a long way to go in a short time. Passing the legislation will require hard choices, and not every demand can be met. Still, Thune's South Dakota colleague, Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, says he has already proved himself a 'winner' with Trump and the conference by quickly moving the president's Cabinet nominations through the Senate mostly without controversy. The Senate also recently blocked California air regulations that Republicans have long opposed after Thune delayed the vote for weeks to assuage procedural concerns from GOP moderates like Maine Sen. Susan Collins. 'Everybody wants to work with John,' Rounds said. 'He's not making anybody mad right now.' Rounds says Thune has also learned how to crack down when he needs to. Since taking power, Thune has shortened Senate vote times that were sometimes stretching for hours to just 15 minutes, in most cases. It was a hard lesson for some senators, but it won him respect from Republicans and, privately, even some Democrats. But as they were adjusting to the change, some senators unexpectedly missed votes because of Thune's new policy, Rounds said. 'Did he get yelled at a little bit? Yeah,' he said. 'But once they got cut off once or twice, pretty soon they realized, if you want to vote, make it on time.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


Axios
33 minutes ago
- Axios
House Democrats investigate alleged Elon Musk drug use
The top House Democrat on a key investigative panel is asking President Trump whether he had any knowledge of alleged drug use by Elon Musk. Why it matters: The investigation comes as even House Republicans have grown exasperated with Musk's erratic antics, as Axios reported on Wednesday. Musk has stirred considerable anger with his erstwhile Republican allies by coming out harshly against Trump's "One Big, Beautiful Bill." But he's winning few friends in the Democratic Party, which is still seething at his shock-and-awe tactics as the head of DOGE. Driving the news: Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), the acting ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, sent Trump a letter asking him "any information you or any Administration officials have regarding whether Mr. Musk consumed any illicit substances" while running DOGE. He also asked for information about whether Musk specifically took drugs while in the White House or other federal buildings or during the 2024 presidential campaign. Lynch cited reporting by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times that Musk used illicit drugs including ketamine, psychedelic mushrooms and ecstasy before and during his time campaigning for Trump. The other side: Musk denied the NYT's reporting that he took illicit drugs while on the 2024 campaign trail, posting on X that he is "NOT taking drugs!" He added, "I tried *prescription* ketamine a few years ago and said so ... so this not even news. It helps for getting out of dark mental holes, but haven't taken it since then." Reality check: Trump is unlikely to respond to the letter, and Lynch as the ranking minority member on the panel has no power to compel him to testify or turn over documents.