On April 22, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) handed down harsh penalties on Fordham University’s men’s basketball program in what it referred to as a Level II “Major Infractions Case” via a negotiated resolution with the university. 

On April 23, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken temporarily rejected the terms of the settlement in House v. NCAA, effectively issuing an ultimatum to the parties: fix the roster limits issue or risk blowing up the settlement. We have discussed the House case and the terms of the settlement in several NIL Revolution blog posts and Highway to NIL podcast episodes.

On April 21, the Division I Board of Directors (Board) greenlit major National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rule changes that are contingent on court approval of the $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement. If the settlement is approved, these changes would eliminate more than 150 rules, many of which conflict with the settlement’s terms, and create new rules related to enforcement and oversight of the school distributions and student-athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) payments.

In this episode of Highway to NIL, Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys Cal Stein and Chris Brolley discuss the recent developments in the House litigation. The episode covers the highlights and concerns raised during the final settlement hearing held by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on April 7.

Rutgers University football player Jett Elad is one of the latest student-athletes to file a federal antitrust lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.[1] Elad’s lawsuit challenges what he calls the NCAA’s “arbitrary and unreasonable” application of its new waiver allowing student-athletes who attended and competed at a non-NCAA school (e.g., junior college (JUCO)) for one or more years to remain eligible to compete in 2025-26 academic year (JUCO Waiver).

With the final approval hearing for the House settlement before Judge Wilken in the Northern District of California set for April 7, the state of South Dakota has continued its battle to prevent that settlement from getting approved. After initially filing a lawsuit in South Dakota state court seeking to prevent the settlement from taking effect, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) removed the case to federal court. However, on March 28, the federal court in South Dakota remanded the case back to South Dakota state court. Now, South Dakota has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to block the settlement.

Recently, Pennsylvania’s Saint Francis University announced its decision to reclassify its intercollegiate athletics program from NCAA Division I to Division III, citing the difficulty in governance associated with college athletics, which is only growing in “complexity based on realities like the transfer portal, pay-for-play, and other shifts that move athletics away from love of the game.” Saint Francis is the first school to reclassify its athletics programs in response to the pending House settlement.

On March 13, the NCAA issued guidance in the form of a Q&A defining the scope of the eligibility waiver it previously approved on December 23, 2024, for student-athletes who have competed at non-NCAA institutions, such as junior colleges (JUCO) and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) schools. The December 2024 waiver[1] extended an extra year of eligibility in the 2025-26 academic year to student-athletes who previously “competed at a non-NCAA school for one or more years,” and otherwise would have exhausted their NCAA eligibility following the 2024-25 season.

How NCAA Division I conferences choose to deal with the implications of the House, et al., v. NCAA, et al. settlement, and in particular the revenue-sharing mechanism known as the “pool,” has been the subject of much speculation and debate. Commentators have asked whether conferences will require participation, or leave…