Nearing a judge’s decision for House v. NCAA that will make major changes to NIL money distribution, former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, a driving force behind the case, is watching closely. (Photo by Spencer Barnes/Cronkite News)
TEMPE – After five long years, Grant House can breathe.
In a landmark decision for college athletics, a California judge is preparing to settle the former ASU swimmer’s lawsuit against the NCAA.
The decision allows college athletes to be directly paid by their schools, ending the amateurism model that has been a core pillar of the NCAA since its founding in the early 1900s. House’s case was joined by two others, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA, in the decision.
“The settlement is a great catapult,” House said Wednesday. “I certainly don’t think this is the end all be all. I think this is a giant, giant step, a giant leap forward for all advocacy of athletes.”
Now, schools will be able to allocate up to $20.5 million in revenue sharing to athletes in the 2025-26 academic year. Damages totaling $2.8 billion will also be paid to athletes dating back to 2016 for missed opportunities from NIL, which allows college players to control and profit from their name, image and likeness.
The influential NCAA v. Alston and O’Bannon v. NCAA cases in 2021 allowed athletes to be paid for their own name, image and likeness — but the incoming result of House’s case is a huge shift that further monetizes collegiate sports.
The yearly cash that must now be paid to athletes is a set percentage of media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships at 22%. This amount will be up to $20.5 million in payable funds to players per year initially, but will rise steadily, similar to most salary caps.
The money will be distributed differently for each school, with no set divide within the settlement. It will most likely align with the highest revenue sports — meaning football will take the most, then men’s basketball, then women’s basketball, then pennies on the dollar for other sports.
Schools without football programs, like in the Atlantic 10 or Big East, may also gain significant advantages, as they can allocate more money toward their basketball programs without the significant dip that football would take from their funds.
The expected monetary divide for many Division I schools is roughly as follows: football taking 75% of the budget, 15% going to men’s basketball, 5% to women’s basketball and the remaining 5% to other programs.
Teams may be forced to compete against one another for crucial funding, which will especially affect the livelihood of smaller Olympic or non-revenue sports.
The initial decision was delayed by the judge because of issues with some of the details of the settlement. However, there is no indication that these concerns will stop the approval as these are resolved within the near future.
Supporters of the decision say this will not hurt these programs’ viability, as other forms of funding have already been able to keep these sports going. The actual result when the plan comes into effect on July 1 is still up in the air.
There is no current cap for how much individual athletes can make, either. Outside NIL deals valued at $600 and more will be evaluated and required to be reported under the proposed settlement.
Athletic scholarships will also be significantly reworked, as team scholarship limits will be replaced with roster limits. The specific details are currently under review.
Former ASU standout swimmer Grant House helped lead change in the water — and in the courtroom. (Photo by Chuck Arelei/Pac-12 Conference)
House originally sued the NCAA in 2020 while swimming for the Sun Devils. In conjunction with another plaintiff, now-TCU women’s basketball star Sedona Prince, the suit asked for damages to current and former athletes who were not able to receive NIL money.
This change, among other seismic shifts in the world of college athletics in the 2020s, marks an unknown future for college programs and athletes alike.
“There’s a lot more that athletes need access to and can’t access,” House said. “They should have partnering with, voices in, ownership in (college sports) and should be walking alongside, rather than behind or below.”
For ASU and the University of Arizona, which have already undergone significant changes with conference realignment, the settlement further shakes up the livelihood of their highest-grossing sports.
Fresh off a Big 12 Conference championship in 2024, ASU certainly seems to be in a good position with its football program, and this money may further attract athletes to coach Kenny Dillingham’s revival of the Sun Devils.
NIL is clearly here to stay, but it’s unclear if these athlete-first shifts will be further regulated as the decade advances. Critics of the new era are unhappy with the transfer portal’s money takeover as more financed teams are able to secure top talent more consistently, and the settlement may contribute to furthering this alleged lack of parity.
As the details are worked out, and all signs point toward the end of college amateurism as we know it, supporters are optimistic that House v. NCAA will create a more equitable split for athletes.
House said he believes athletes viewing their collegiate experience as more human is the most impactful result of the settlement.
“Up until NIL was elevated and allowed by the NCAA, it was really only your performance in the field, on the court, in the pool, on the mats that mattered,” House said.
“Now they can be artists. Now they can be fashion designers. … They can have their own gallery. They can create drawings. They can cook. They can promote themselves in other ways.”
