The NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule continues to face sustained antitrust scrutiny. The most recent challenge has been raised in the Southern District of Iowa by Cuban-born Division I wrestler Reineri Andreu Ortega in the case Ortega v. NCAA, No. 25-CV-00496. As with similar challenges, Ortega challenges the NCAA’s practice of starting an athlete’s eligibility clock before the athlete ever enrolls at an NCAA institution, arguing that the rule unlawfully restrains athlete labor markets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

On December 9, 2025, the University of Utah, in what appears to be the first such deal of its kind, announced plans to partner with Otro Capital in a private equity arrangement. The deal is projected to generate approximately $500 million in capital for the university’s athletic programs.[i] Otro Capital is a New York-based firm that invests in sports teams and leagues.[ii]

The College Sports Commission (CSC) has circulated a 10-page University Participation Agreement that would dramatically reshape NIL and direct-payment enforcement. The biggest shift: schools would waive their right to challenge CSC rulings in court and funnel all disputes into the arbitration system created by the House settlement. The agreement only takes effect if every school signs.

The College Sports Commission (CSC) has circulated a 10-page University Participation Agreement that would dramatically reshape NIL and direct-payment enforcement. The biggest shift: schools would waive their right to challenge CSC rulings in court and funnel all disputes into the arbitration system created by the House settlement. The agreement only takes effect if every school signs.

On November 13, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who oversees the House v. NCAA settlement, overruled objections to the Injunctive Relief Settlement (IRS) filed by seven student-athletes.[1] Judge Wilken held a fairness hearing during which she heard from the objectors who raised several arguments around Title IX, roster limits, nonrevenue generating sports, inadequate representation by class counsel, and insufficient notice.

In this episode of Highway to NIL, Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys Cal Stein, Chris Brolley, and George Pla look at the post-House settlement landscape, including the revenue-sharing pool that allows schools to pay athletes up to 22% of athletic revenue. They examine how those payments may impact athletic budgets and nonrevenue sports, and how schools may seek to make up any shortfalls by, among other things, maximizing their media rights revenue through incentive-based agreements and exploring private capital investments.

The NCAA Division I Board of Directors has adopted emergency legislation that allows the College Sports Commission (CSC) to declare Division I student-athletes ineligible for failing to disclose noninstitutional name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals within five days of entering into those deals. The emergency amendment also imposes obligations on institutions that learn that a student-athlete has failed to disclose the NIL deal.

Background

The movement to allow student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) continues to sweep across the nation, reshaping amateur athletics from coast to coast. What began as a collegiate phenomenon has steadily made its way into high school athletics, with nearly every state now allowing young athletes to benefit from their NIL in some form.[1]

On October 8, the College Sports Commission (CSC) launched an anonymous tipline that facilitates the confidential reporting of possible violations related to third-party name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements and revenue distribution in college athletics. This comes after Front Office Sports reported that several major power conference collectives are giving up on trying to work through the NIL Go clearinghouse established in the House v. NCAA settlement. We have previously written about the terms of the House settlement.

This week, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed a lawsuit brought by four former University of Michigan football players who claimed they had been deprived of profits derived from use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Judge Terrence G. Berg granted the motion to dismiss filed by defendants NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, and the Big Ten Network, holding that the statute of limitations had run on claims of all four former players.