College athletics trending towards the direction of professional sports is not new, the NCAA has modified rules to give student-athletes compensation and control since the transfer portal opened. However, in the summer of 2025, new rules were introduced that have effects that we have not witnessed yet.

The House vs. NCAA case or house settlement was effective as of July 1, 2025, stating that programs will compensate certain student-athletes who participated between 2016 and June 6, 2025 for lost Name, Image and Likeness (N.I.L) revenue. A total of $2.8 billion dollars will be paid out to these athletes from both athletic programs and the NCAA over the next 10 years. 

Another alteration from the house settlement is revenue sharing. This portion of the settlement claims that schools may legally pay student-athletes directly.   

The annual cap for this form of direct payment as of 2025 is $20.5 million per school, which programs may use to pay back their student-athletes for the money the athletic programs make from media, sponsorships, tickets, and more. 

Mark Conrad, a professor of law and ethics at the Fordham University Gabelli School of Business who teaches sports law, says the settlement is not set in stone yet.  

“This is a settlement of an antitrust case, and some parties have challenged it because parts of it could be deemed anti-competitive,” said Conrad. “You’re limiting your pool of compensation, and if that challenge is successful, it could delay implementation.”

Although the settlement may change, Conrad says there are concerns over which athletes get the most money from athletic programs.

“It certainly may have an effect on the kinds of sports that don’t generate the kind of revenues, there is a question, where is this money going to?” he said. “The majority of money seems to be going to football and basketball, men’s and women’s.”

“What about tennis, or other non-revenue sports?” Conrad asked. “It really remains to be seen how you’re going to actually divvy up this kind of money. I think we’re in a messy period, where athletic directors are really going to be forced to make some decisions.”

Conrad says athletic directors may have to consider Title IX, the law that prohibits gender discrimination in programs receiving federal money, when making these decisions.

“We do have the specter of potential Title IX litigation, if the money is going to be considered part of funding for Title IX purposes, and that’s yet to be determined by the courts,” said Conrad.

If the compensation is ruled part of funding for Title IX purposes, programs will have to spread out compensation equally throughout teams of each gender.

Conrad says there may be Title IX implications as an effect of the revenue sharing model. He says there are more females going to college than males, and programs may have to sacrifice sports teams to align with Title IX.

“Most enrollments that you are seeing are more female to male, but yet the disparate aspect is more men can compete in college teams than women,” said Conrad. “Unfortunately, one way to solve that is to cut teams. It’s not right, but it’s one way to solve it.”

To comply with Title IX in the revenue sharing model, Conrad says he thinks schools may even end up cutting the college sport which generates the most overall revenue in the country, football. 

“You can solve your Title IX issues very easily if you cut men’s football,” he said. ”I think schools will.”

Conrad says some schools may not have to deal with the implications of the House Settlements revenue sharing at all. 

“There is an opt-in feature here. Not every school has to participate in this settlement,” Conrad explained. “So, you’re going to have schools that are probably going to say, ‘We can’t afford to do this,’ or, ‘We’re not going to do this.’”

Some schools have already opted out, all eight Ivy-League schools, all ten Patriot League schools and others have opted out of the revenue sharing model. The vast majority of Division 1 schools did opt in, about 82% opted into revenue-sharing by the July 1 deadline.

Conrad says schools that opt out may have chosen the old funding model because they do not receive enough revenue to dedicate up to $20.5 million for athlete compensation. He says it would make sense for schools that generate less revenue to stick with the old compensation model.

“If you’re a smaller school with 25 sports and a $30 million budget, opting in might break your athletic department,” said Conrad. “Not opting in might mean losing your best recruits.”

Opting out of the revenue sharing model still comes with a cost, according to Conrad.

“There are going to be some schools that say, ‘We’re going to stay with the old model,” he said. “They’re going to have to make that decision knowing they’ll be at a competitive disadvantage.”

He says the gap between elite programs and less competitive teams can widen due to the revenue sharing model.

“I think this may create even more of a stratification between those who are truly big-time, big-revenue-producing institutions, and those that are more on the periphery,” he said. “This could eventually lead to some type of further separation, almost a semi-pro league of sorts.”

While separating schools who can afford the revenue sharing model to those who choose to opt-out, Conrad says the house settlement also has a detrimental effect on Olympic sports.

“Olympic sports are going to take a hit,” he said. “They’re expensive, they don’t generate much revenue, and if schools have to start reallocating $15 or $20 million a year to football and men’s basketball players, something has to give.”

Conrad says schools who opt-in have options for how they choose to free up money for sports that create the most revenue. 

“Schools might have to start trimming around the edges. Maybe they cut a couple of sports. Maybe they reduce scholarships, said Conrad. “Maybe they stop competing at the Division I level in certain sports.”

While some teams may need to make cuts, some student-athletes are signed to multi-million dollar contracts. Still, they are not considered legal employees. Conrad says President Trump may plan to keep that policy. 

“Many have argued that college athletes should be deemed as employees and if they are employees, they have the right to unionize,” he said. “The Trump administration’s view is very different.”

Conrad says President Trump already took action to enforce student-athletes being separate from legal employees. 

“This year a number of bills have been introduced that would specifically state that college athletes are not employees,” said Conrad. “The view is to compensate college athletes in a certain way but don’t make them employees to negotiate collective bargaining agreements.”

However, Conrad says unionization is the best option because it provides transparency. 

“My personal feeling is that I think unionization would be the best solution because everything would be regulated,” he said. “If you have that agreement, each side knows what they have to do. There’s no stuff under the table.”

Professional sports leagues with unions demonstrate that college sports would benefit from unionization as well, according to Conrad.

“If you look at labor relations and professional sports, it’s worked really well,” he said. ”Some version of that should be done.”

Despite the absence of legal employment for players, Conrad says he thinks college athletics will continue trending towards professional sports.

“I just think you’re just going to see it more and more professionalized,” he said. “You wonder if it’s going to hit a certain level financially.”

Although players cannot unionize, they are being paid directly from the revenue they generate for the first time. Another step towards professionalization for college athletics.