NCAA Wins Final Approval of $2.8 Billion Player-Pay Deal (2)

The NCAA and its power conferences got final approval Friday of a nearly $2.8 billion antitrust deal allowing colleges to pay student-athletes directly for the first time, a milestone in yearslong litigation also designed to quell future suits over name, image, and likeness.

Judge Claudia Wilken of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said the deal as a whole was adequate and that pro-competitiveness justifications outweighed any downsides.

She approved the deal after sparring with the NCAA and athlete plaintiffs over a provision that limited roster spots on college teams in exchange for more athlete scholarships.

“Approving the agreement reached by the NCAA, the defendant conferences and student-athletes in the settlement opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports,” NCAA President Charlie Baker said in a statement Friday. “This new framework that enables schools to provide direct financial benefits to student-athletes and establishes clear and specific rules to regulate third-party NIL agreements marks a huge step forward for college sports.”

Roster Limits, Revenues

The NCAA and the plaintiffs submitted revisions on May 7 to exempt some Division I athletes from roster restrictions to help satisfy Wilken.

“These modifications negate any harm that the roster limits could have caused to class members who were or will be impacted by the immediate implementation of the roster limits, because they enable Designated Student-Athletes to be eligible for roster spots without the roster limits provisions posing an obstacle,” Wilken said Friday.

Approval of the deal means participating schools can begin sharing revenue with athletes as early as this summer. Under the deal, Power Five schools can share payments worth up to 22% of their average athletic revenue, which is projected to be roughly $20 million per school annually.

The NCAA and the conferences will, over a 10-year period, pay $2.75 billion in back damages to thousands of Division I athletes who played since 2016.

Wilken also backed the length of the deal and its treatment of future student-athletes. “The ten-year term is essential for providing stability for Division I college sports,” the judge said.

The approval comes roughly a year after the NCAA and conferences including the Big Ten and Atlantic Coast Conference agreed to the deal, calling it a major step in reforming college sports. Wilken preliminarily approved the settlement last year.

“We could not be more pleased with this decision or happier for the athletes,” plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Kessler of Winston & Strawn LLP said. “Hundred of thousands of Division I athletes will now have the opportunity to benefit from the tens of billions of dollars in new benefits and compensation that will be available. It is a new era in college sports and a just one for the athletes.”

Deal Challenges

Objectors, including social-media star and former LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne, had raised various other issues with the settlement proposal, but Wilken turned them aside in Friday’s ruling.

Some athletes argued the settlement still illegally capped compensation, included unfair limits on the number of spots on a team roster, and failed to provide equal pay to female athletes.

They also took issue with NCAA’s oversight of NIL payments offered to athletes worth more than $600.

During a hearing on the deal, Wilken also raised concerns over roster limits as well a provision that bound future college athletes to an agreement they didn’t have a hand in negotiating.

In response, the NCAA and athlete plaintiffs submitted revisions in April clarifying that future Division I athletes won’t release their injunctive and declaratory relief claims until they have received notice and an opportunity to object to the settlement agreement.

The NCAA noted that less than 0.1% of the approximately 389,700 potential class members objected.

Continuing Litigation

Litigation against the sports organization is expected to continue despite the deal, which covers claims in three antitrust suits, including one brought by swimmer Grant House, that were combined.

Several former athletes who weren’t covered by the deal and played decades ago continue to pursue litigation over past NIL.

“Significant challenges remain, including attempts to force student-athletes to be classified as employees despite their leadership at all levels opposing this,” Baker’s statement said. “In addition, attacks persist on college sports’ ability to set national rules regarding years of eligibility—the policies that enable the next generation of young people to access educational and athletics opportunities.

“And states continue to undercut one another in a race to the bottom by challenging the ability of the NCAA and conferences to establish and enforce rules that maintain level playing fields,” Baker said.

Plaintiffs are also represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The NCAA is represented by Wilkinson Stekloff LLP.

The case is In re College Athlete NIL Litig., N.D. Cal., No. 4:20-cv-03919, final approval 6/6/25.