The long-anticipated House v. NCAA settlement, approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on June 6th, was poised to mark a turning point in the college athletics landscape. The $2.8 billion agreement would resolve antitrust claims brought by former college athletes who were denied name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation before 2021. It also opened the door for future revenue-sharing arrangements between Division I programs and current student-athletes, beginning in July 2025.
However, a recent legal challenge has complicated the settlement’s rollout, specifically the portion providing retroactive back pay to former athletes. Just six days after Judge Wilken approved the settlement, eight female student-athletes filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the damages portion of the settlement disproportionately benefits male athletes and fails to account for historical gender disparities in collegiate sports.
The appellants allege that the structure of the back pay distribution favors athletes from football and men’s basketball programs, where NIL valuations and revenue potential have historically been the highest. According to the appellants, this allocation model entrenches past inequities by sidelining the contributions and NIL value of female athletes in less commercialized sports. They assert that the settlement should have accounted for Title IX principles and more equitably distributed the damages fund among male and female claimants, despite Judge Wilken’s repeated assertions that the antitrust case did not implicate Title IX.
While the appeal is not expected to derail the settlement’s forward-looking provisions, including the implementation of direct revenue-sharing payments to current athletes starting July 1, 2025, it has paused the disbursement of back damages to former athletes. The court has stayed those payments pending resolution of the appeal.
This development introduces significant uncertainty. This legal challenge to the approved settlement forces the judiciary to confront deeper questions about gender equity in class action settlements involving college sports. It may also create ripple effects for how future NIL litigation incorporates equity considerations, especially where past systemic disparities in exposure, media rights, and monetization opportunities are concerned.
The timing of the appeal also complicates planning for schools and other stakeholders. Former student-athletes, many of whom expected to receive payments as early as this year, must now wait indefinitely. Institutions preparing for implementation of the broader settlement terms will also need to monitor whether any changes to the damages allocation may affect the overall class certification or funding structure.
If the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of the appellants, it could require a restructuring of the back damages framework, potentially delaying final approval even further. If the appeal is rejected, back pay could resume, but a ruling on the appeal is not likely to occur in 2025.
Ultimately, this challenge underscores a broader truth in the NIL era: legal and compliance landscapes remain fluid, landmark settlements are subject to complex litigation risks, and NIL for college athletes remains an ever-evolving arena. For schools, collectives, and athlete representatives, this moment serves as a reminder that both fairness and finality in NIL reform may take longer to achieve than anticipated.
Follow WeAreNIL to stay up to date on the latest House settlement news.