A district court last week approved settlement in the landmark House v. NCAA case, which involved a lawsuit brought by former Arizona State swimmer Grant House and TCU basketball player Sedona Prince. The two athletes sought an injunction to force the NCAA and affiliated athletic conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing from broadcast rights. The NCAA agreed to a $2.75 billion settlement that will create a revenue-sharing model allowing member institutions to distribute funds directly to Division I athletes who have played since 2016.

What does that mean, exactly?

The simple part is this: the NCAA just agreed to allow its member-schools to pay their athletes. Each school will be able to spend about $20.5 million per year, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships.

The complicated part is everything else.

While NCAA member-schools give out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year, its athletes have long argued that should not offset the millions in revenue they help produce for the schools. For decades, student-athletes had their cost-of-attendance covered, but were unable to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Meanwhile, coaches, administrators and private entrepreneurs could. In 2021, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, like businesses and donors. Under House, schools can now pay additional money directly to athletes, while the NIL deals remain intact.

Put bluntly, we now have millions of more dollars flowing in negotiable amounts towards student-athletes. What could be the problem?

There is no language in the settlement about how universities must distribute their $20.5 million yearly allotment. For most Division-I schools, football is the cash cow. Its profits often fund other sports, like volleyball, swimming and tennis, which in many instances operate at a financial loss. Because of this, schools will likely pay the bulk of their $20.5 million to football players. If a school has a top quarterback, it will need a chunk of its House money to keep him from being lured away by a rival willing to pay more (don’t be shocked when the phrase “House money!” catches on, by the way). If the bulk of a school’s House money is going to its football players, how soon before athletes from other sports sue for a better share of the pie — particularly with Title IX still on the books?

The $20.5 million cap is an issue as well. I’m not sure how the 22% figure for revenue sharing with student-athletes was determined, but it seems like only a matter of time before that gets challenged. Will student-athletes make a case they deserve more? Once they do, they’ll be back in court, demanding a bigger slice of the revenue pie. The more money in the process, the more controversy. Mo’ money, mo’ problems. I’m sure you’ve heard that before.

Then there’s the SEC, which has already made public its displeasure with the NCAA and its desire to at least explore alternatives. Could the SEC recruit other powerhouse athletic programs, schools like Ohio State, Oregon, USC, and Clemson, and push for an independent super-league of their own? Ridding themselves of NCAA regulations would allow them to determine their own rules and laws about student-athlete pay, and to bypass the tangled web the NCAA often weaves. I don’t know if something is actually in the works, or whether the SEC is blowing smoke to pressure the NCAA to guarantee them more teams in the national football playoff. Either way, I can’t see how the House verdict helps the situation.

Ultimately, there are so many questions here. How will direct payments effect the amateur status of athletes? How will they impact NIL regulations? Will women be paid on par with their male counterparts, and if not, will these be construed as Title IX violations? Will the $20.5 million “cap” be challenged, much like caps on political campaign contributions were? Will that give powerhouse schools with ambitious donors a massive advantage over everyone else? Will the NCAA as we know it cease to exist?

None of these questions can be answered at present. But all of them create hurdles to maintaining the status quo. Oh, and as for those poor coaches now tasked with recruiting 17-year-olds (and their parents) in this new reality? Make sure you have your checkbook close and at the ready…

For more of my work, follow me on X @KTSmithFFSN, and tune into my “Call Sheet Daily” podcast, which airs every Monday-Friday mornings on all major platforms.