$2.8 Billion NCAA Settlement Promises Pay for Athletes, But at What Cost?
The NCAA logo is displayed at center court at The Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh, March 18, 2015. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic, File)
Big changes are coming to college sports, and while student-athletes may finally get paid, schools like Santa Clara University could face serious challenges.
A landmark $2.8 billion settlement could soon upend the structure of college sports, offering long-awaited financial compensation to student-athletes, but not without significant consequences. The proposed agreement, stemming from the House v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA antitrust lawsuits, would establish direct revenue-sharing for college athletes for the first time in NCAA history. Yet, its swift and sweeping implementation is raising alarms across the country, including here at Santa Clara University.
Judge Claudia Wilken, who sits atop the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued an order last week stating that if settlement parties cannot revise terms in a way that will prevent athletes from losing roster spots, the agreement will be denied approval.
“I think it’s a good settlement,” Wilken said during the April 7 hearing. “I think it is worth pursuing, and I think some of these things could be fixed if people tried to fix them—and that it would be worth their while to try to fix them.”
The heart of this case is how to pay athletes fairly while maintaining opportunities for as many students as possible. The settlement seeks to resolve multiple class-action lawsuits that challenge the NCAA’s longstanding restrictions on athlete compensation. It includes two major provisions: a back pay of $2.8 billion in damages distributed over ten years to athletes who played from 2016 to 2024 and a revenue-sharing agreement beginning this academic year in which schools can share up to 22 percent of their annual media, ticket, and scholarship revenue—capped at $22 million—with current athletes.
The proposed roster limits have risen to a topic of national interest due to the large number of college athletes who could lose their spot on a team as a result. Current regulations cap the number of scholarships teams can offer—85 in football, 13 in men’s and women’s basketball, and 12 in softball—which can be awarded as either full or partial scholarships. Those teams can also have additional non-scholarship athletes listed as walk-ons.
The new limit would permit schools to provide a scholarship for every spot on the roster, and every sport would receive an increase in the number of scholarships at hand. However, the total roster number would be capped by that roster limit; in football, the new limit of 105 increases the number available by 20, but most Division I programs carry about 120 players, meaning teams would have to make significant cuts to meet the new criteria.
“This is a new concept to college teams,” said Lexi Trapani ’27, a volleyball player at Santa Clara University. “Up until now, scholarships were limited. This could really help athletes who deserve more support.”
However, Trapani expressed concern about how roster limits could offset those gains: “We have to be really smart about recruiting. If rosters shrink, we’re going to have to cut players who might’ve been important practice contributors or long-term prospects.”
Many argue this change disproportionately hurts walk-ons, partial scholarship players, and smaller programs. The settlement’s current form could eliminate more than 5,000 athletic opportunities across Power Five conferences alone.
Leonard Lun, a licensed sports agent and law professor at the University, says the settlement could both help and hurt schools like Santa Clara. Since the Broncos don’t have a football program, they are spared from the most detrimental roster cuts.
However, there are many other complications that are overlooked under the scrutiny of the roster limits, like income tax. Schools with larger donor bases and national exposure have widened the margin, especially those in states with minimal or no state taxes. Players who earn—or want to earn—significant NIL money might be swayed to play for these schools, like those in Florida and Texas, since they have no income tax. The changes in recruiting over the past few years have reflected this.
Santa Clara Athletics has not yet made any official statements about how it will adapt to the proposed changes. Internally, however, it is anticipated that coaches and compliance officers are modeling what revenue-sharing could look like for their teams and how many roster spots they might be able to keep.
The parties involved in the settlement have two weeks to revise the agreement before Judge Wilken decides whether to approve it. If the revisions fall short, the NCAA could face a trial with far-reaching consequences. Meanwhile, schools have until July 1 to prepare for possible implementation.
In the long run, the House v. NCAA settlement could mark a turning point in the decades-long debate over athlete rights. But in the short term, it’s forcing tough decisions and tough conversations on campuses across the country.