Judge Delays Approval for House Settlement, Which Would Shift College Sports Towards Professionalism

A federal judge sent lawyers for the NCAA and a group of student-athletes back to the negotiating table over a settlement set to reshape college athletics — replacing scholarship limits with roster caps and allowing institutions to directly pay the players.

After four years of legal wrangling, both sides of the sprawling class-action lawsuit came to an agreement that would pay athletes that missed out on name, image and likeness (NIL) deals and allow universities to directly pay athletes in the future. The agreement would modify practically every aspect of the modern college athletics landscape and pay out almost $2.8 billion in damages.

The judge, Claudia Wilken, stopped short of rejecting the agreement, commonly known as the House settlement, in her April 23 ruling but warned she would do so if the roster caps were not modified to protect current student-athletes who would lose their spots.

“That outcome is not fair to those class members, and that remains true even if other class members may benefit,” Wilken wrote in an order.

Wilken said every other aspect of the settlement was acceptable and did not need modification. 

The NCAA has already adopted rule changes, and member institutions have begun to notify players who would stand to lose their spots, preparing for final approval of the settlement. Wilken was unconvinced this was enough to approve the settlement. 

“Any disruption that may occur is a problem of Defendants’ and NCAA member schools’ own making,” Wilken wrote. 

Steve Berman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he would work to resolve the issue but stood ready to bring the case to trial.

“We will work hard to convince the NCAA and the conferences to address the court’s concerns,” Berman wrote in a statement. “If we are unable to do so, then we are off to trial and will return to fighting the NCAA in court.”

Wilken suggested roster limits could be implemented gradually, grandfathering in current student-athletes to protect their spots. She also ruled the rest of the settlement did not need to be modified.

Under the agreement, universities that opt in may participate in “revenue-sharing” with their players, capped at a maximum of $20.5 million annually across all sports. It would also require other NIL deals, from donors or boosters, to be at a “fair market value,” as determined by Deloitte, a prominent consulting firm. 

The settlement would also reduce the maximum number of players permitted on each team but would allow schools to provide a full scholarship to each player, meaning some student-athletes, especially walk-ons on larger teams in non-revenue-generating sports, would lose their roster spots.

Kaira Brown (GRD ’26), a sprinter on the Georgetown University women’s track and field team, works for the National College Players Association (NCPA), an interest group that advocates for the rights of student-athletes, and has advocated for student-athlete rights before lawmakers. 

Brown, who filed an objection to the agreement, said she opposed the agreement when Ramogi Huma, executive director of the NCPA, told her the settlement would not benefit athletes. 

“I really trust Ramogi,” Brown told The Hoya. “When he says this isn’t something good for athletes, I do a little of my own digging, but mostly I believe him because this has been his life’s work since before I was born, and so that’s how I came to be an objector.”

One term of the settlement requires the plaintiffs’ attorneys to join the NCAA in its efforts lobbying the U.S. Congress for an antitrust exemption, which would allow the NCAA to impose more broad restrictions without liability. Brown said student-athletes do not have as strong of an advocate for their interests — especially on non-financial issues — and should pursue forming a union next.

“NIL gets all the glitz and glam, and it’s also important to pay athletes what they’re worth,” Brown told The Hoya. “But my main issue throughout all of this has always been creating more gender equity and health and safety provisions for athletes.”

“Only if we use our collective power will we ever be able to measure up against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences,” Brown added.

The Big East was not a named defendant in the litigation, so the conference did not directly negotiate the settlement agreement. However, every Big East school opted into the agreement and will be bound by new NCAA rules that permit direct payments to athletes.

Big East men’s basketball, including Georgetown, is poised to benefit from the agreement since other large conferences will likely direct their revenue-sharing budget toward football, contrasting Big East schools’ likely prioritization of basketball. With a higher percentage of their revenue-sharing cap space heading toward basketball, Big East schools will be able to field more skilled and competitive teams. 

In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, summarizing the men’s basketball season, Georgetown Intercollegiate Athletics Director Lee Reed wrote, “The future is bright! We must enthusiastically embrace this new world of revenue sharing to achieve the competitive outcomes we all desire!”

Reed announced in an email to season ticket holders and donors obtained by The Hoya that Hoyas Rising, Georgetown’s NIL collective, will close May 31 and the university will directly assume its obligations.

“As permitted by the House settlement, we intend to bring the structure for Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) opportunities into the university, as we anticipate many of our peers will do as well,” Reed wrote.

Reed also observed donations to support NIL would be paid directly to the university, and thus tax deductible, which could stimulate more donations to fund revenue-sharing or NIL by providing tax incentives for donors.

A Georgetown Athletics spokesperson said that, while the structure of roster limits is in flux, Georgetown is not one of the schools that has begun to cut players.

“No student-athletes have been cut from rosters due to proposed NCAA roster limits,” the spokesperson wrote to The Hoya.

The spokesperson, citing NCAA rules, declined to comment on if any recruits would lose their offers.

Even if the agreement is adopted, litigation and legislative wrangling is poised to continue for many years. The NCAA continues to lobby lawmakers for an exemption from federal antitrust laws. Multiple athletes who opted out of the settlement, including former Villanova University basketball player Kris Jenkins, have filed other lawsuits against the NCAA and conferences. 

The judge gave 14 days for the agreement to be modified, after which she will issue a final ruling. If the agreement is accepted, it is likely to be appealed, potentially becoming the latest case concerning student-athletes to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. If rejected, the case will proceed to trial at the end of 2025 or the beginning of 2026.