College sports lawsuits in 2025 and 2026 have moved from the margins of the industry to its center. The House v. NCAA settlement, approved in June 2025, let schools pay athletes directly for the first time and set aside $2.576 billion in back damages. It also triggered a Title IX appeal that has frozen those back-pay checks, a fresh antitrust class action attacking the settlement’s own enforcement body, Title IX suits over cut women’s programs, unresolved fights over whether athletes are employees, and a wave of individual eligibility cases. Here is where each of those fronts stands and how they fit together.
The House Settlement and What It Changed
On June 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval to the settlement in In re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-03919 CW, in the Northern District of California.1collegeathletecompensation.com. Opinion Re Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement The deal resolves three consolidated federal antitrust lawsuits — House, Carter, and Hubbard — that accused the NCAA of illegally limiting how much college athletes could earn.2ESPN. Judge Grants Final Approval of House v. NCAA Settlement
The settlement has two moving parts. First, $2.576 billion in back damages, paid out over ten years, goes to Division I athletes who competed at any point from 2016 onward.1collegeathletecompensation.com. Opinion Re Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement Football and men’s basketball players receive the largest amounts; women’s basketball players receive smaller averages, and athletes in other sports receive still less, with most non-revenue pay-for-play claims averaging around $50.3Hagens Berman. Settlement Payout Estimates That disparity is the basis of the Title IX appeal.
Second, starting July 1, 2025, Division I schools that opted in can share athletic revenue directly with their athletes. The cap for 2025–26 is $20.5 million per school, calculated as 22% of Power Five schools’ average athletic revenues, and is projected to grow by roughly 4% annually, reaching an estimated $32.9 million by 2034–35.4NCSL. What the NCAA Settlement Means for Colleges and State Legislatures These payments come on top of existing scholarships, and unlike third-party NIL deals, they must comply with Title IX.2ESPN. Judge Grants Final Approval of House v. NCAA Settlement
By the June 30, 2025 deadline, 310 Division I athletic departments had opted in and 54 opted out.5Sportico. Division I Revenue-Sharing Schools List All five power conferences are participating. The Ivy League, the Patriot League, and the three service academies stayed out. Schools that opted out may join in any subsequent year during the settlement’s ten-year term.
Approval did not come easily. Judge Wilken initially declined to approve the deal on April 23, 2025, after finding that its proposed roster limits were already forcing athletes off teams. She gave the parties until May 7 to add protections for current athletes, including a grandfathering provision, and approved the revised agreement the following month.2ESPN. Judge Grants Final Approval of House v. NCAA Settlement
The Title IX Appeal Freezing Back Pay
Five days after final approval, eight female athletes filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit challenging how the back damages are distributed.6The Athletic. House NCAA Settlement Appeal Title IX Led by Kacie Breeding of Vanderbilt and Kate Johnson of the University of Virginia, and represented by attorney John Clune, the appellants argue that the settlement violates Title IX because it pays female athletes significantly less than football and men’s basketball players.
Additional groups of female athletes filed appeals in June and July 2025, and the Ninth Circuit consolidated them. Opening briefs were filed in late October 2025, with reply briefs due in February 2026.7College Sports Litigation Tracker. Tracker No oral argument date has been set, and the Ninth Circuit typically takes about two years to decide an appeal.8Sportico. House Settlement Appeal Title IX NCAA
The practical effect: back-pay distribution to class members is paused. No payments have been made.9United Educators. Title IX After House NCAA Settlement The forward-looking revenue-sharing component is unaffected; schools began direct payments on July 1, 2025 as planned.6The Athletic. House NCAA Settlement Appeal Title IX
In November 2025, Judge Wilken denied motions from a separate set of objectors, including athletes from Cal Poly’s discontinued swimming program, who sought to block the settlement’s injunctive relief. She ruled that individual Title IX claims against specific schools should be pursued through separate gender-equity lawsuits, not through challenges to the settlement itself.10Sportico. House v. NCAA Settlement Objectors Overruled Title IX
The New Antitrust Suit Against the College Sports Commission
The settlement created the College Sports Commission (CSC), a new body charged with overseeing revenue sharing, vetting third-party NIL deals, and enforcing roster limits. It is led by CEO Bryan Seeley, a former Department of Justice attorney and MLB investigations chief.2ESPN. Judge Grants Final Approval of House v. NCAA Settlement Its central tool is “NIL Go,” a Deloitte-built clearinghouse that requires the reporting and review of all third-party NIL deals worth $600 or more.4NCSL. What the NCAA Settlement Means for Colleges and State Legislatures
The CSC’s first year drew scrutiny. It banned payments from donor collectives, then reversed the ban. In September 2025, it initially reported clearing 8,000 deals worth $80 million before revising the numbers down to 6,000 deals worth $35 million, blaming a “clerical error.” By October 2025, the CSC had denied 332 deals worth about $10 million.11U.S. House of Representatives. Trahan Letter to CSC on Denied NIL Deals Congresswoman Lori Trahan sent a formal letter on October 10, 2025 demanding detailed operational data. Through February 2026, NIL Go had cleared over 21,000 deals worth $166.5 million and rejected 711 deals worth $29.3 million.12The Athletic. College Sports Commission NIL Deals Approval
On June 9, 2026, USC freshman linebacker Talanoa Ili and Stanford senior quarterback Charlie Mirer filed a class-action lawsuit in the Northern District of California directly targeting the CSC. The 81-page complaint names the NCAA, the power conferences, the CSC, NCAA president Charlie Baker, four conference commissioners, and Seeley as defendants.13Yahoo Sports. Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against NCAA, Power Conferences and College Sports Commission Over House Settlement
The plaintiffs allege that the CSC and NIL Go function as a price-fixing scheme that suppresses NIL compensation below competitive levels, violating federal antitrust law and conflicting with state NIL statutes in 17 states, including California, New York, Ohio, and Michigan, that protect athletes’ right to earn unlimited NIL compensation.14USA Today. NCAA Antitrust Lawsuit House Settlement Revenue Sharing Cap Ili claims that a USC-associated collective offered him a “substantial multiyear” NIL deal that “disappeared” after the House settlement took effect.15Sportico. California NIL Cap House Settlement Lawsuit NCAA The suit seeks treble damages and an injunction against enforcement. At the time of filing, more than $125 million in promised NIL compensation was under review or had been rejected.13Yahoo Sports. Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against NCAA, Power Conferences and College Sports Commission Over House Settlement The NCAA is expected to argue the dispute belongs in the settlement’s arbitration process rather than a new lawsuit.
Title IX Suits Over Cut Women’s Sports
Funding revenue-sharing payments has strained athletic budgets, and some schools have responded by eliminating programs. The leading case involves Stephen F. Austin State University, which announced it would cut women’s beach volleyball, women’s bowling, and men’s and women’s golf after opting into the House settlement.
On June 30, 2025, seven female athletes sued to block the cuts. On August 1, 2025, a federal court issued a temporary order preventing SFA from eliminating the women’s teams, finding the university failed all three prongs of the Department of Education’s Title IX test. Women make up 63% of SFA’s undergraduate enrollment but received only 45.6% of athletic opportunities.16SwimSwam. A Look at Recent Eligibility Cases Won Lost by the NCAA The athletes also cited President Trump’s July 24, 2025 executive order titled “Saving College Sports,” which states that “opportunities for scholarships and collegiate athletic competition in women’s and non-revenue sports must be preserved and, where possible, expanded.”17Campus Reform. Trump Executive Order Cited Lawsuit Stephen F. Austin Cuts Womens Sports
The order directs athletic departments with revenues above $125 million to increase scholarships and maximize roster spots for non-revenue sports, and instructs the Secretary of Education, the Attorney General, and the FTC Chairman to develop enforcement plans within 30 to 60 days using “regulatory, enforcement, and litigation mechanisms,” including federal funding decisions and Title IX enforcement. It also directs those officials to protect collegiate athletic structures from antitrust-based challenges. The order includes a standard disclaimer that it creates no privately enforceable legal rights.18The White House. Saving College Sports
Are College Athletes Employees
A separate line of litigation asks whether athletes are employees entitled to labor protections. Two prominent labor-law tracks have stalled, but a federal wage-and-hour case is alive.
The Dartmouth men’s basketball team voted 13–2 in March 2024 to join SEIU Local 560, after a regional NLRB director ruled that the players qualified as university employees under the National Labor Relations Act. It was the first successful unionization vote by college athletes. On December 31, 2024, the union withdrew its petition before the full NLRB could rule on Dartmouth’s appeal. SEIU president Chris Peck characterized the withdrawal as a move to preserve the regional director’s precedent, fearing a Republican-majority Board under the incoming Trump administration would overturn it.19The Dartmouth. Dartmouth Mens Basketball Team Drops Effort to Unionize The NLRB closed the case in January 2025.20NLRB. Case 01-RC-325633
A parallel proceeding involving USC, the Pac-12, and the NCAA, in which the NLRB had alleged the entities misclassified football and basketball players as non-employees, also ended without resolution. The National College Players Association withdrew the underlying unfair labor practice charge on January 10, 2025, citing a desire to let the industry adjust to the revenue-sharing era and acknowledging the shifting political climate at the NLRB.21Sportico. NCPA Withdraws Unfair Labor Practice Charge
The question remains live in federal court. In Johnson v. NCAA, six former college athletes sued the NCAA and numerous Division I schools in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2019, arguing they should have been paid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In July 2024, the Third Circuit rejected the NCAA’s argument that “amateurism” bars athlete employment claims as a matter of law.22Justia. Ralph Johnson v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 22-1223 The court set out a four-factor test asking whether athletes perform services primarily for the school’s benefit, under the school’s control, in exchange for compensation or in-kind benefits. The case was remanded and remains pending.23Harvard Law Review. Johnson v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn
The Surge in Eligibility Lawsuits
Alongside the compensation and labor cases, individual eligibility challenges have piled up. As of mid-2026, the NCAA has dealt with more than 60 eligibility-related lawsuits, winning more than two-thirds of them, but spending over $16 million in legal fees. Courts granted injunctions letting individual athletes play in more than a dozen cases during the 2025–26 school year, including J Robinson v. NCAA, Moore v. NCAA, and Chambliss v. NCAA.16SwimSwam. A Look at Recent Eligibility Cases Won Lost by the NCAA
The volume has prompted a policy response. The NCAA Division I Cabinet is considering extending baseline athlete eligibility to five years while tightening rules on redshirts and waiver exemptions. In 2025, the NCAA received 1,450 waiver requests, granted about two-thirds, and the roughly 500 denials produced more than 70 lawsuits.16SwimSwam. A Look at Recent Eligibility Cases Won Lost by the NCAA
The Antitrust Cases That Set the Stage
The current wave of litigation rests on three earlier decisions that progressively eroded the NCAA’s claim that amateurism rules are immune from legal scrutiny.
In NCAA v. Board of Regents (1984), the Supreme Court struck down NCAA television restrictions as antitrust violations while applying a “rule of reason” analysis. The opinion contained language suggesting athletes “must not be paid” to preserve the character of college sports, a passage whose legal weight would be debated for decades.24Harvard Law Review. NCAA v. Alston
In 2014, O’Bannon v. NCAA challenged the prohibition on compensating athletes for use of their names, images, and likenesses in video games and broadcasts. The Ninth Circuit held that rules limiting compensation below the full cost of attendance were more restrictive than necessary and characterized the Board of Regents amateurism language as nonbinding dicta.25Congressional Research Service. Background on NCAA Antitrust Litigation The Power Five conferences began covering the full cost of attendance in 2015.
In 2021, NCAA v. Alston unanimously held that NCAA rules capping education-related benefits violated the Sherman Act. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion confirmed the NCAA is not exempt from antitrust law. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a pointed concurrence stating, “The NCAA is not above the law,” and suggested the organization’s remaining compensation restrictions raised “serious antitrust questions.”24Harvard Law Review. NCAA v. Alston Shortly after, the NCAA allowed athletes to earn third-party NIL compensation. The Alston framework is the foundation the House settlement was built on, and it is the same framework the Ili and Mirer plaintiffs now invoke against the settlement’s own enforcement arm.