The rebels now officially have two open spots. It'll be interesting to see who they land to fill out the roster.
House Settlement Approved
- Thread starter UNLV2019
- Start date
I believe you were the one in the know on this a few months ago.. thanks!
One thing still up in the air is equitable distribution between men's and women's sports. As men's roster sizes increase will women's roster sizes need to increase proportionally? How will women be paid to stay in line with title 9? The settlement mentions complying with title 9 but not how. This strikes me as especially important to G5 schools that don't have unlimited resources.
Valid questions.
I could see us having to eliminate a sport like Men's Soccer. When you add 20 new football scholarships to football something will have to be done to make things "equitable" for women per title 9. A Men's sport should be cut rather than add a new Women's sport I would think. The House Settlement is going to require more women on scholarship on it's own and then can we afford to continue funding all Men's sports? I don't know. Scholarships are going to be increasing in almost all sports since they are eliminating walk-ons and partial scholarships. Something is going to have to give or we will go broke.
I just looked it up and we currently have 7 men’s sports and 9 women’s.
I’d think that first on the chopping block would be men’s swim and dive, if any programs are eliminated. (Just my opinion without any knowledge of anything).
Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5 years old. I read all the stuff. I still don't get it.
The House v. NCAA settlement is a landmark $2.8 billion agreement approved on June 6, 2025, fundamentally changing college sports by allowing schools to directly pay Division I athletes for the first time. Here’s a brief explanation:
- Background: Filed in 2020 by Arizona State swimmer Grant House and others, the class-action lawsuit claimed the NCAA and Power Five conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC) violated antitrust laws by restricting athletes’ ability to earn from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) and other compensation.
- Key Components:
- Back Pay: Approximately $2.8 billion will be paid over 10 years to Division I athletes who competed from 2016 to 2024, compensating them for lost NIL opportunities. Football and men’s basketball players will receive the majority (around 75% and 20%, respectively), with an average payout of $135,000 for Power Five athletes in these sports.
- Revenue Sharing: Starting July 1, 2025, schools can opt to share up to 22% of their athletic revenue (about $20.5 million annually in 2025-26, potentially rising to $33 million by 2035) directly with athletes. This is capped per school and primarily benefits football and basketball players. ( Most guess at 75% football, 15% men's BB and down from there to zero for some Olympic sports)
- Roster Limits: The settlement replaces scholarship caps with roster limits, allowing schools to offer full scholarships to all rostered athletes but potentially reducing spots for walk-ons and non-revenue sports. A "grandfathering" provision protects current athletes from roster cuts for 1 year.
- NIL Oversight: A new body, the College Sports Commission, will oversee third-party NIL deals over $600 to ensure fair market value, reducing the influence of booster collectives.
- Impact: The settlement ends the NCAA’s amateurism model, moving college sports closer to a professional framework. It provides financial benefits to athletes but raises concerns about Title IX compliance, roster cuts for non-revenue sports, and ongoing legal challenges (e.g., athlete employment status).
- Funding: The NCAA covers 40% of the damages ($1.1 billion), with the rest from reduced revenue distributions to schools. Power Five conferences pay 24%, Group of Five 10%, FCS 14%, and non-football Division I conferences 12%.
- Unresolved Issues: The settlement doesn’t address athlete employment, unionization, or state law conflicts, and possible equal pay for female athletes. Further lawsuits are expected. The NCAA seeks federal legislation for antitrust protection.
Taken from several different AI's
Thanks. I'm gonna have to take a huge bong rip to absorb this.
I'm sort of thinking this would all be solved by making college teams a feeder system to pros. In which case, these kids should be signing pro contracts before they get to college. They are the pro team asset, not the college's asset. Basically the Euro soccer model. Pro clubs sign kids to contracts at like 12 years old and then send them out to smaller clubs (colleges here) to develop. The pro clubs foot the entire bill and pay for everything. Some work out. Many don't.
They are not in any way an asset to the NFL or CFL. 99% of these players would never even come close to ever playing pro ball, so why would professional football teams want to help pay the billions it cost for these college pros?
You obviously don't know what I was referring to or no idea how things works in other parts that are not the USA. That's OK.
Apparently a class action lawsuit by multiple female athletes is being filed challenging this ruling.
www.on3.com
Report: Women's sports athletes to file appeal on House vs. NCAA settlement citing Title IX violations
A group of women's sports athletes/representatives will appeal the House v. NCAA settlement citing Title IX violations, per Amanda Christovich.
It was just a matter of time- faster than I thought.Apparently a class action lawsuit by multiple female athletes is being filed challenging this ruling.
Report: Women's sports athletes to file appeal on House vs. NCAA settlement citing Title IX violations
A group of women's sports athletes/representatives will appeal the House v. NCAA settlement citing Title IX violations, per Amanda Christovich.
Probably want it split evenly regardless of sport
I don't think that Title IX enforces equal funding, but it does enforce equal opportunity. Usually this is scholarships, but when the school is revenue sharing I'm pretty sure they have solid legal ground to stand on here. I'm not exactly what that means in dollars and cents, but I'd say they have a legitimate grievance looking for a slightly larger slice of the pie than 4%. I'd probably sue if I were them, too.
Even if the $EC and B1G split off from the NCAA like the rumors are stating is going to happen in the next 5 years, they'll still be subject to Title IX if they want federal money.
Like I said in another thread, If they want to challenge this, then we should change the rule that each sport gets revenue sharing for whatever their sport generates. I don't know how it is fair, legal or not, that any athlete feels entitled to money that they had zero impact on producing. I thought the argument was equality, was it not?
I think more accurately it's about equity. Even under Title IX, men's programs receive far more funding per scholarship than women's sports, so it was never an equality thing, but we don't need to get lost in the semantic pedantry.
I think splitting by sport is a decent idea, but I also think that if you're having a struggling program you're now forcing athletic departments to make cruel decisions. UNLV football, for example, lost money for decades--under the by sport distribution you lose the flexibility to get money where you need to get it you can't distribute that money to the programs that need it, and all to avoid giving the ladies a couple extra bucks to distribute.
And I am OK with that too, but forcing equal distribution is my main contention. A. Because I don't think it is "fair or equal", and B. forcing revenue sharing to non revenue generating athletes will really hurt schools like UNLV.
But that's not what's happening really. And it's not what's ever happened historically with all the other Title IX enforcements. Currently, a rough average you'll see between men and women's spending is around 2-3:1. With this decision men's sports are getting 2.4 billion with a B and women's sports are getting 102 million with an M which is an order of magnitude difference (23.5:1). The minute that you approve this to give universities the ability to profit share, you open the door for at least a Title IX review and the way students are charged for funding given that something like 55% of tuitions are female means there's going to be some changes that are going to get tacked on to this deal.
I guess start your counter suit?
On June 11, 2025, eight female athletes—Kacie Breeding (Vanderbilt), Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron, Elizabeth Arnold (College of Charleston), and Kate Johnson (University of Virginia)—filed an appeal in a California federal court. They argue that the settlement's back-pay damages, which allocate approximately 90% of the $2.8 billion to football and men's basketball players, violate Title IX's requirement for equitable treatment based on sex. The appeal specifically targets the damages portion, not the revenue-sharing framework, and claims the distribution formula disproportionately favors male athletes, potentially shortchanging female athletes by around $1.1 billion. This legal action has paused the distribution of back-pay damages pending the appeal, though the revenue-sharing model is unaffected and set to proceed.
The lawsuit contends that Title IX, which mandates equal athletic opportunities and financial assistance for male and female athletes at federally funded institutions, applies to the settlement's damages because they are tied to athletic participation. The Biden U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued guidance on January 16, 2025, stating that NIL payments from schools qualify as "athletic financial assistance" under Title IX, requiring proportional distribution based on the number of male and female athletes. However, this guidance was rescinded by the Trump administration, creating uncertainty about enforcement. Legal experts, including Title IX attorney Arthur Bryant, argue that schools risk further lawsuits if they allocate revenue-sharing funds disproportionately, as many plan to direct 70-75% to football and men's basketball.
While the House settlement itself does not address Title IX compliance, leaving it to schools to determine equitable distribution, the appeal highlights ongoing tensions. The plaintiffs support a settlement but demand one that aligns with Title IX’s equity requirements. Additional lawsuits are anticipated as schools implement revenue-sharing plans, especially if they prioritize revenue-generating sports over equitable distribution.
Compiled for multiple AI searches.
The lawsuit contends that Title IX, which mandates equal athletic opportunities and financial assistance for male and female athletes at federally funded institutions, applies to the settlement's damages because they are tied to athletic participation. The Biden U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued guidance on January 16, 2025, stating that NIL payments from schools qualify as "athletic financial assistance" under Title IX, requiring proportional distribution based on the number of male and female athletes. However, this guidance was rescinded by the Trump administration, creating uncertainty about enforcement. Legal experts, including Title IX attorney Arthur Bryant, argue that schools risk further lawsuits if they allocate revenue-sharing funds disproportionately, as many plan to direct 70-75% to football and men's basketball.
While the House settlement itself does not address Title IX compliance, leaving it to schools to determine equitable distribution, the appeal highlights ongoing tensions. The plaintiffs support a settlement but demand one that aligns with Title IX’s equity requirements. Additional lawsuits are anticipated as schools implement revenue-sharing plans, especially if they prioritize revenue-generating sports over equitable distribution.
Compiled for multiple AI searches.
I guess I am confused by what you mean by "spending". As long as the scholarship distribution is equal, I don't see the issue.
I can see more football/basketball players getting grad school level scholarships which have more value. But still that is a stretch.
But other than that, are you talking about funding for football programs in general vs other sports?
Well football is freaking expensive, though it also pays all the bills for most programs, especially when you consider it is 75% of media revenue conservatively. If that is the argument, I think that is a poor one. Especially since even considering the extremely high overhead, football often funds the entire athletic department and is the reason women's sports and other non revenue sports exist.
I'm using spending just as a frame of reference. It probably muddied the waters more than I intended. Football is the most expensive sport, but saying it pays for all the other sports is the same sort of philosophic view that lead to title IX being implemented and interpreted legally like it has been int the first place.
I'll try to explain my thought process. And for the record, I don't really have a dog in the fight. It's better for UNLV if it goes one way, so I have a bias, but I can't ignore the way things look.
From a Title IX enforcement angle, scholarships are the item of value that the institutions provide. Profit and spending is relatively ignored as long as scholarships are equal, then there is equity in opportunity. Then the rest of the money can go where it needs to go. Now, the university is offering another opportunity, through direct financial 'pay for play'. Is it equitable to pay one student 200k a year and a scholarship and another for the same time investment $1k and a scholarship? It at least bears some legal investigation before you just say 'that's fine'. Especially given the mess that's going on at DoE and the appellate courts right now. I don't think they're out to get halfsies, they're going to want a bigger slice of the pie before you divvy it up.
I can't blame them. Much easier to fight for and get a seat at the table now, then let it walk out the door and have to fight for it later.
I think realistically what this is going to mean is probably is a settlement between the two parties wishes, like most legal challenges. Also, as far as I know this suit is only about the dispensation from this case, but I would also expect a legal challenge to profit sharing as that starts to go into effect. And the big boys won't care if having to pay our swimming and divers more money hurts our recruiting, and it's one of those rare times where you get to look magnanimous and like you care about 55% of your enrollment while it doesn't hurt the bottom line of all the big schools at the table.
