Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) deals allow college and high school student-athletes to earn money from their personal brand through endorsements, social media posts, selling merchandise and other partnerships. In June of 2025, the House v. NCAA settlement was accepted. This settlement allows Division I schools to directly pay student-athletes, share revenue with the athletes and limits roster sizes to a lower number due to schools being able to pay their entire team roster since the scholarship caps were eliminated. It also includes a $2.8 billion back pay to former student-athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024. Football and basketball players are expected to receive the largest shares of this back pay. Due to these new developments and the evolving rules, the state of college athletics is changing with the end of amateurism, which previously prohibited college athletes from being paid for their sports. 

This has raised the concern of unequal opportunities and has already seen backlash, including from a group of eight female athletes who have appealed the back pay structure on Title IX grounds, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal funding, and it resulted in a hold on payments until the issue is resolved. The backlash stems from the distribution formula allocating 90% of the back pay funds to male athletes, furthering the history of gender inequity in college sports. The federal judge who approved the settlement, Claudia Wilken, previously rejected Title IX concerns and ruled the case as an antitrust matter rather than a gender equity case, also claiming that the formula for allocation was based on market value, not gender discrimination. 

Although there are many reasons to support this settlement model, such as being able to pay deserving athletes and resolving antitrust violations related to historical earnings, there are broader concerns for the future of college sports with the impact of this settlement being passed. Some have raised concerns over the reality of non-revenue college sports eventually being cut due to the new revenue sharing model and resulting expenses which could disproportionately affect women. Some believe that this major step could be just the beginning, making the college sports world all the more unstable and full of uncertainty with the potential for increased changes. Others fear the possible violations that will occur along with the regulations currently in place for athletes and that their compensation structure could constitute an unauthorized form of employment. 

Despite the halt in back pay distribution, the other terms of the settlement remain in full effect. Athletes aiming for Division I schools already had the odds stacked against them and will now have an increasingly difficult time getting recruited due to the roster caps. Although the settlement grants more scholarship opportunities for athletes and direct payment, enabling the athletes to receive immediate benefits, there are both benefits and downsides to the new rules. If permitted by the school, all the athletes on the team are able to be paid for playing at the collegiate level. However, due to teams having to cut down the amount of athletes on their team, as they can only pay a set number of players with the given amount of money, coaches are having to cut athletes from the team as well as significantly reduce the recruits they can take on, making it extremely difficult to fulfill even some of the most highly talented players’ desires of playing at the Division I level.