House v. NCAA Class Action Settlement on Shaky Ground and How We Got Here

Written by Weston Collins | March 26, 2026

Introduction

From its inception, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) maintained that student athletes, as amateurs, should not receive funding for their athletic participation (Zaia, 2025).  Additionally and historically, athletes were not allowed to monetize their name, image, and likeness (NIL) if they wished to retain their collegiate status (Grow, 2022).  Finding that these NCAA regulations violated principles of antitrust law, major court decisions starting in 2021 have emerged, culminating in the June 6, 2025 landmark settlement in the House v. NCAA class action suit, which has subsequently been appealed.  Consequently, the issue of how the NCAA is permitted to regulate NIL is still being defined, while the approved NIL damages are additionally raising concern of how Title IX should be integrated into restorative rulings. 

Development of Key Cases Leading to the House v. NCAA Settlement

In NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), the supreme court ruled that the then current NCAA television broadcasting plan violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, but that the NCAA should be held to less stringent standards under antitrust law, leading the NCAA to restrict athlete compensation under the NCAA amateurism model.  The NCAA amateurism model was implemented through 2021, and the distinction the organization sought to draw between collegiate and professional athletes restricted athletes from earning any compensation not related to academics (Grow, 2022).  NCAA v. Alston, 594 US 69 (2021), however, addressed the issue of the NCAA model of amateurism, by ruling that the NCAA must allow for academic benefits like computers and science equipment, but maintaining that the NCAA could still limit cash grants for academic purposes (Id.).  While the ruling in NCAA v. Alston dictated only marginal change for the structure of athletic compensation, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrent opinion concluded that, “there are serious questions whether the NCAA’s remaining compensation rules can pass muster under ordinary rule of reason scrutiny” (Id.).

House v. NCAA

In 2020, Arizona State University swimmer Grant House and Texas Christian University Basketball player Sedona Prince sued the NCAA seeking name, image, and likeness damages.  On June 6, 2025 Judge Claudia Wilkens approved the House v. NCAA settlement that requires the NCAA to pay, “$2.8 billion in back damages over the next 10 years to athletes who competed in college at any time from 2016 through present day” (Murphy, 2025).  This landmark settlement effectively decimated the NCAA amateur model, allowing colleges to compensate athletes by opening, “the door for college athletic departments to pay their athletes directly with revenue gleaned from media rights, tickets, sponsorships and so on” (Wetzel, 2025).  

Controversy in Response to House v. NCAA

While the House v. NCAA settlement settled claims under federal antitrust law, student athletes Charlotte North, Mai Nirundorn, Katherine McCabe Ernst, Sarah Brooke Baker appealed the settlement arguing that, “the District Court failed to properly interpret and apply federal antidiscrimination law, specifically Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), causing material harm to all past, current, and future female Division I student-athletes (Female Sub-Class)” (Appellant’s Opening Brief, House et al. v. North et al. v. NCAA et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW, filed October 29, 2025). The appellants argue that, “The district court abused its discretion in approving the settlement…, Class Counsel’s Conflict of Interest with Female Sub-Class Violates Adequacy of Representation Requirement Under Rule 23… and, The Settlement's Title IX Release Violates Rule 23 and Constitutional Rights of Female Sub-Class” (Id.).  This appeal is still pending and its outcome will continue to shape the way in which the NCAA responds to NIL compensation moving forward. 

References

Appellant’s Opening Brief, House et al. v. North et al. v. NCAA et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW, filed October 29, 2025

Grow, N. (2022). The Future of College Sports After Alston: Reforming the NCAA via Conditional Antitrust Immunity. William & Mary Law Review, 64(2), 385-442.

Murphy, D. (2025, jun 6). Judge OK's $2.8B settlement, paving way for colleges to pay athletes. ESPN. Retrieved March 22, 2026, from https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/45467505/judge-grants-final-approval-house-v-ncaa-settlement

NCAA v. Alston, 594 US 69 (2021)

NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984)

Wetzel, D. (2025, April 12). No more charades: College amateurism is officially dead, and good riddance. ESPN. Retrieved March 22, 2026, from https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/44633521/amateurism-ever-existed-college-sports-officially-dead

Zaia, J. (2025). he Hist The History and F y and Future of Amateurism in College Spor e of Amateurism in College Sports. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 35(2), 503-558.