On May 7, the parties in House v. NCAA submitted supplemental briefs in response to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s April 23 order[1] requiring both parties to address her concerns over the issue of roster limits. These briefs (i) revised the terms of the proposed settlement agreement and (ii) detailed how the revisions would ensure “that members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class will not be harmed by the immediate implementation of the roster limits provisions.”[2]

Recently, the University of Kentucky took an interesting step in the context of collegiate athletics by converting its athletic department into a limited liability company (LLC), named Champions Blue LLC. This structure makes Kentucky the first university in the U.S. to restructure its athletic department in this manner. The move reflects a growing awareness among universities that the traditional model of collegiate sports may no longer be the most financially or legally sustainable model in the face of mounting pressures from name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals, antitrust litigation, and evolving NCAA regulations.

On Monday, a U.S. district court judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit brought by former Kansas basketball player Mario Chalmers and 15 other former college basketball players. The plaintiffs all played college basketball before June 15, 2016 — the proposed start date for the House settlement pending approval in the Northern District of California — meaning they would not be beneficiaries of that settlement. Accordingly, the former players sued the NCAA and the conferences in which their respective institutions competed, alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust law by forcing the players to agree to amateurism rules and forgo compensation for use of their NIL while the NCAA and defendant conferences simultaneously generated revenue from use of the players’ NIL.

On April 25, U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi ordered the NCAA not to enforce its Five-Year Rule against Rutgers University cornerback Jett Elad.[1] The impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements on the new world of Division I sports underpinned two key findings in the opinion: (1) the NCAA’s junior college rule (JUCO Rule) is subject to federal antitrust laws; and, (2) Elad had a likelihood of success on the merits because Division I student-athletes have a greater ability to benefit from NIL agreements compared to non-Division I athletes.

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.