The House/NCAA Settlement: What It Means for Power Four and Mid-Majors
Breaking down the options, challenges, and likely outcomes of the $2.8 billion settlement.
The $2.8 billion proposed settlement in House v. NCAA is shaking the foundation of college athletics. While Power Four schools and mid-majors alike face tough decisions, their paths forward couldn’t look more different. Let’s break it down so you can see what’s at stake, who’s likely to do what, and how this could reshape college sports as we know it.
What’s in the Settlement?
Backpay:
The NCAA will pay $2.8 billion in backpay to student-athletes, mainly for FBS football and men’s basketball players from 2016 to 2020.
Payments will come from the NCAA itself (42%) and reduced distributions to member schools (58%).
Optional Revenue Sharing:
Power Four schools may opt to pay up to 22% of their revenue directly to athletes.
Payments could include direct compensation or benefits like apparel, meals, and travel, but NIL deals with third parties aren’t capped.
Scholarship Changes:
The traditional scholarship system is being replaced with roster limits, allowing programs to decide between full and partial scholarships.
Title IX Concerns:
Since 80-90% of backpay goes to men’s sports, schools must ensure revenue sharing complies with Title IX, which could spark additional litigation.
Implications for Power Four Schools
Challenges:
Power Four schools have the financial resources to absorb these changes, but that doesn’t mean the transition will be smooth. Title IX compliance will be a major hurdle. Schools must ensure that benefits and compensation are equitable across men’s and women’s sports—a tall order given the historical revenue disparities between football and women’s athletics.
Options:
Adopt Revenue Sharing: Most Power Four schools will likely embrace this system to stay competitive in recruiting. Offering direct payments will be seen as a necessary cost of doing business.
Bolster NIL Opportunities: Schools could lean on Collectives to cover the gap, encouraging third-party deals to keep athletes happy while minimizing direct payouts.
Cut Costs Elsewhere: Non-revenue sports could be at risk as schools redirect resources to maintain compliance and fund revenue-sharing obligations.
Likely Outcome:
Power Four programs will lead the charge in revenue sharing, viewing it as an opportunity to solidify their dominance in recruiting and competition. However, this could widen the gap between haves and have-nots in college sports.
Implications for Mid-Majors
Challenges:
For mid-majors like the College of Charleston, the settlement presents a stark choice: either opt into revenue sharing and face significant financial strain, or opt out and risk losing top-tier talent to Power Four programs. Unlike their wealthier counterparts, mid-majors don’t have the luxury of massive TV deals or booster networks to offset these costs.
Options:
Opt In: Mid-majors can choose to participate in revenue sharing, but this will force them to reevaluate their approach to athletics entirely. They’ll need to justify every dollar spent on Division I sports.
Focus on NIL: Mid-majors could position themselves as NIL-friendly environments, emphasizing local sponsorships and third-party deals over direct payments.
Double Down on Non-Revenue Sports: Alternatively, they could pivot to excelling in sports outside the revenue-sharing model, like baseball or volleyball, where they may already have a competitive edge.
Likely Outcome:
Most mid-majors will likely opt out of revenue sharing, prioritizing long-term financial sustainability. Instead, they’ll lean heavily on NIL strategies to keep their programs competitive.
Title IX: The Elephant in the Room
The disproportionate allocation of backpay to men’s sports raises immediate Title IX red flags. Schools must demonstrate that revenue-sharing systems comply with federal equity laws, meaning proportional benefits across all genders. For schools already grappling with limited budgets, this could mean eliminating non-revenue sports to achieve compliance.
The Bigger Picture
The House settlement isn’t just about money—it’s a glimpse into the future of college sports. Power Four schools are likely to become even more like professional organizations, while mid-majors will need to get creative to survive.
This moment represents an opportunity for all schools to redefine their priorities: Is the goal to win at all costs, or to maintain a balanced, sustainable athletic program?
For student-athletes, the settlement offers new opportunities to benefit from their work, but it also demands that they understand their value in an evolving system.
Final Thoughts
Whether you’re a Power Four powerhouse or a mid-major scrapper, one thing is clear: the House settlement has changed the game. How schools respond will shape the future of college athletics—for better or worse.