A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics:
Advertisement
Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter?
A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA.
Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from?
A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs.
Advertisement
Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes?
A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won.
Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now?
A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game.
Advertisement
Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes?
A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes.
Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all?
A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states.
Advertisement
Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed?
A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness).
Q: Who will get most of the money?
A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well.
Advertisement
Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes?
A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit.
Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right?
A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill.
___
AP college sports: https://apnews.com/hub/college-sports
Eddie Pells, The Associated Press
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alabama football is no longer 'a Jalen Milroe offense.' What Ryan Grubb means
Ryan Grubb saw progress from all three of Alabama football's scholarship quarterbacks in the Crimson Tide's second scrimmage. All three, he said, made clean and accurate throws, pushing the ball downfield when they could and being smart with their check-down opportunities. To Grubb, it was three quarterbacks running his Alabama offense, one he expects to look a little different than last season. "We're not necessarily a Jalen Milroe offense right now," Grubb said. "Jalen was, obviously, a super talented runner, and that was probably a part of the game plan every week, which was smart last year by the offensive staff." Grubb did not doubt in Alabama starting quarterback Ty Simpson's ability to run the football. Simpson has averaged 5.9 yards on 22 rush attempts with three rushing touchdowns in three collegiate seasons. Grubb described Michael Penix Jr. as a "good runner," one Washington didn't utilize until later because "it's a long season." Grubb needs his quarterback to focus elsewhere. "You're better off with your starter being able to throw the football in this offense than run it," Grubb said. "We'll certainly look for those opportunities because Ty is a good runner. We'll make sure we have things for him. But taking care of him, making sure he's upright is important." Alabama football opens the 2025 season against Florida State Aug. 30. Colin Gay covers Alabama football for The Tuscaloosa News, part of the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at cgay@ or follow him @_ColinGay on X, formerly known as Twitter. This article originally appeared on The Tuscaloosa News: Ryan Grubb describes Alabama football as no longer a 'Jalen Milroe offense'
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NFL holdouts, contract negotiation tracker: Are Cowboys, Micah Parsons really headed for 'divorce?'
NFL training camp season is upon us, which means holdout/hold-in season is too as players seek new contracts. The biggest saga of the summer has been between Micah Parsons and the Dallas Cowboys. Team owner and general manager Jerry Jones opened training camp with a wild, meandering media conference that took shots at Parsons' health, and Parsons has not been shy about voicing his displeasure with both that day and the entire process of trying to get a new deal. Parsons is arguably the NFL's best defender, and he's only 26 years old, so you'd think the Cowboys wouldn't mess around too much with this negotiation. You thought wrong! While the franchise has a history of leaving it late with star player contracts like Dak Prescott and CeeDee Lamb, to its credit, the deals get done. ESPN's Adam Schefter doesn't sound so optimistic about this one. [Join or create a Yahoo Fantasy Football league for the 2025 NFL season] "You caan't get a deal done if you're not even talking, and the two sides haven't had any negotiations since late March or early April," he said Tuesday. "It sounds like at this point it's personal. It sounds like each side is dug in." There are, of course, plenty of instances in NFL history where negotiating acrimony was swept aside to get a deal done. Schefter, however, doesn't see that happening here. "I see these two sides headed towards a divorce in time," he said. "The only question is, when is that divorce going to happen, and how is it going to happen? Are they going to trade him now? Are they going to trade him after this year?" There's still over two weeks before the Cowboys open the regular season in Philadelphia against the Eagles on Thursday, Sept. 4. Who knows, maybe Jones wants to steal some thunder from Dallas' bitter rival opening the season as defending Super Bowl champion by getting the Parsons deal across the line a day or two before kickoff. Given the way this is trending, however, it doesn't feel like Parsons will be a Cowboy much longer. That's gloomy. How about the other contract seekers? Is there more gloom, or will there soon be reason to say "boom"? Washington Commanders WR Terry McLaurin: Boom Yahoo Sports' Charles Robinson spoke last week on the gulf between McLaurin and the Commanders, and what a deal might look like. "I think if it can get to $27 million to $28 million in annual average value," Robinson said, "if you're getting somewhere between $50 and $60 million in guaranteed money, I don't think either side would be happy, but I think it is the middle ground that gets those two together." Robinson believes the negotiation has gotten to a point where McLaurin's asking for $33 million in average annual value and $60 million guaranteed, similar to DK Metcalf's deal with the Steelers. The Commanders and GM Adam Peters might not be willing to go there, since the history of age-30 receivers delivering after signing a deal like that is short (McLaurin turns 30 in September). Plus, teams reportedly haven't been hammering Washington's phone lines with trade offers, and Jayden Daniels has publicly spoken about wanting McLaurin back in the fold. All told, the momentum here seems to be headed toward a compromise deal, so we'll go boom. Cincinnati Bengals pass rusher Trey Hendrickson: Gloom This situation has heated up again the past couple days. First there were reports over the weekend that the Bengals were listening to trade offers for Hendrickson. Then, the NFL's reigning sack king spoke to ESPN on Monday and said that while he and the Bengals are close on annual salary and the length of his next contract, the team's unwillingness to give him more than one year of guaranteed money remains the sticking point. The Bengals already amended their preferences with regard to guarantee structure twice this offseason, first with All-Pro wide receiver Ja'Marr Chase and then first-round pick Shemar Stewart. They really, really sound like they don't want to do it again, and even though teams know Cincinnati's back is against the wall at the negotiating table, all it might take is one reasonably sweet offer to get a trade done. We're going gloom here. San Francisco 49ers WR Jauan Jennings: Boom Jennings still hasn't practiced since reportedly aggravating a calf injury on July 27, but he did attend the 49ers' preseason game against the Raiders over the weekend, and he's done at least one light workout. We're not going to debate whether the injury is real or not, or if Jennings is maximizing his missed time in an effort to get a deal done. We're simply going to note that this doesn't seem to be a particularly acrimonious situation, and headlines have been sparse on it for weeks. That's usually a good sign. Boom.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bessent says US tariff revenues to rise 'substantially,' focus on reducing debt
By Andrea Shalal WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he expects a big jump in revenues from sweeping tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, and said the money would be used first to start paying down the federal debt, not to give rebate checks to Americans. Bessent, speaking in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box," said he expected to substantially revise upward his earlier estimate of $300 billion in revenues from the tariffs, but declined to be more specific. Bessent said he had not spoken with Trump about the idea of using funds from the tariffs to create a dividend for Americans, but stressed that both of them were "laser-focused" on paying down the debt. "I've been saying that tariff revenue could be $300 billion this year. I'm going to have to revise that up substantially," Bessent said. "We're going to bring down the deficit to GDP. We'll start paying down the debt, and then at that point that can be used as an offset to the American people." The U.S. economy could return to the "good, low-inflationary growth" of the 1990s, Bessent said, but he blamed higher interest rates for problems plaguing some pockets of the economy, singling out housing and lower-income households with high credit card debt. A cut in the Federal Reserve's key interest rate - which Trump has continually pressed for - could help facilitate a boom or pickup in home building, which would help keep prices down in one to two years, he said. The U.S. Census Bureau on Tuesday reported a small increase in groundbreaking for single-family homes and permits for future construction in July, even as high mortgage rates and economic uncertainty continued to hamper home purchases. Trump's wide-ranging import tariffs have kept the Federal Reserve from lowering interest rates this year, with most central bank policymakers wary of easing borrowing costs until they have more confidence the levies will not rekindle inflation, which has yet to return to the Fed's 2% target. Recent indications of softening in the job market, however, have largely convinced investors that the Fed will cut rates by a quarter of a percentage point when it meets in mid-September. That expectation has helped bring down mortgage rates in recent weeks. Bessent has previously said a 50-basis-point cut in rates was warranted. 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