The 2025 settlement in House v. NCAA was supposed to be the “Peace Treaty” for college athletics. Instead, experts say it has simply provided a new set of rules for people to sue each other over. We have moved from a fight for basic rights to a fight over billions in business contracts.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!1. The “Golden Handcuffs” Conflict
Now that schools can pay athletes directly (the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap), they are trying to protect their investments.
- The School’s View: “If we pay a QB $2 million, he shouldn’t be allowed to quit and go to a rival school next month.”
- The Player’s View: “I’m not a professional employee with a union, so you can’t legally restrict my movement with non-compete clauses.”
- The Result: A wave of “breach of contract” lawsuits that are clogging up state courts.
2. The “Forever Athlete” Problem
The traditional “four years of eligibility” rule is dying. Athletes are now suing to stay in college longer because, in many cases, they can make more money in NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals than they would as a rookie in the pros. * Lawyers are arguing that limiting a player’s years in school is an “unlawful restraint of trade.”
- If courts agree, we could see 26-year-old “super-seniors” becoming the new normal.
3. The Regulation Vacuum
The NCAA is currently a “lame duck” organization. They are terrified of enforcing rules because every time they do, they get hit with an antitrust lawsuit.
- Federal Intervention: Congress has been asked to step in with the SCORE Act, but partisan gridlock has stalled it.
- The Missing Link: Without a Players’ Union or Collective Bargaining, there is no legal “shield” to stop the endless cycle of litigation.
