The long-standing dispute between college athletes and the NCAA, known as the House vs. NCAA lawsuit, dates back to 2020. Division I athletes Sedona Prince, a basketball player from Texas Christian University, and Grant House, a swimmer from Arizona State University, initiated the lawsuit. They challenged the NCAA and its Power Five conferences over the restrictions on revenue sharing, seeking changes to Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies and a $2.75 billion settlement.
In May 2024, the NCAA attempted to resolve the case by agreeing to the substantial settlement. However, the resolution faced significant hurdles when Judge Claudia Wilken initially refused to approve the agreement in September 2024. Her main concern stemmed from a clause allowing boosters to provide compensation to athletes for a “valid business purpose,” which she found problematic. After slight revisions to the settlement terms, Wilken approved the deal a month later.
The settlement represented a significant victory for athletes, but it also highlighted the financial stakes for attorneys representing them. During a Yahoo! Sports podcast, analysts Dan Wetzel, Pat Forde, and Ross Dellenger discussed the attorneys’ demands. According to Forde, the lawyers sought 20% of the $2.75 billion settlement, amounting to $560 million. They also requested an ongoing 1% annual revenue share from schools, which would add hundreds of millions more to their compensation.
Dellenger compared the attorneys’ demands to a “multi-level marketing scheme,” stating that the total figure, including various funds and relief awards, reached $725 million. The lawyers argued that their work and the risks involved in bringing the NCAA to a settlement justified their hefty share. Documents revealed that their demands included 20% of the settlement fund, $395 million upfront, an additional $60 million, and a $20 million injunctive relief award spread over ten years.
Meanwhile, the NCAA has faced other legal challenges. Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia sued the organization over eligibility rules for junior college (JUCO) players. The NCAA Division I Board of Directors had granted a waiver to extend eligibility for non-NCAA school athletes. However, Pavia contended that his JUCO playing time should not count toward his four-season limit in NCAA football. He had played two seasons at New Mexico State before moving to Vanderbilt.
Judge Will Campbell ruled in favor of Pavia, ensuring his eligibility for another year of college football. This case marked a positive outcome for JUCO athletes but added to the NCAA’s ongoing legal troubles.
As the NCAA continues to navigate these disputes, the focus remains on whether its settlements and policy changes genuinely benefit athletes or serve as temporary solutions to deeper systemic issues. Critics and analysts alike are closely watching how the organization balances its financial responsibilities with the athletes’ rights and legal demands.