Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart
Newsletter – Volume 25, Issue 13
Share on Social
Playing with House Money
Grab your cleats and ditch your old compliance manual—college sports just entered a whole new era.
On June 6, 2025, a federal judge gave final approval to the long-awaited settlement in the antitrust lawsuit, House v. NCAA (discussed in a previous Fish Tank). The settlement shakes the foundation of collegiate athletics, launching the era of direct revenue-sharing between Division I schools and student-athletes.
Let’s break down what it means, what’s next, and where the real legal risks (and opportunities) lie.
What was Settled?
The House court approved the settlement to resolve long-standing antitrust claims that the NCAA and “Power Five” conferences (Big Ten, Southeastern Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12, and formerly the Pac-12) unlawfully restricted athletes from receiving compensation for their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights.
The settlement provides:
- $2.7–$2.8 billion: Division I athletes who competed from 2016 to 2024 will split retroactive NIL compensation based on a complex formula.
- $20.5 million annual “salary cap” for athletic departments. Starting July 1, 2025, participating schools may share up to this cap with current athletes through structured, enforceable revenue-sharing.
- College Sports Commission: The settlement creates a new independent body to regulate all athlete NIL deals over $600 and monitor fair market value of NIL deals.
- Roster Caps: Scholarship limits are replaced with generally smaller roster caps, which may reduce opportunities for walk-on athletes.
Why The Settlement Affects All of College Sports
This ruling sends a clear message:
The amateur model is dead. Revenue-sharing and NIL are here.
This shift impacts not only top-tier programs but also hundreds of smaller colleges—including Division II and III schools—who face increased fundraising demands, athlete expectations, intellectual property (IP) ownership complexities, compliance infrastructure needs, and greater Title IX and equity risk.
How To Change Your Gameplan
Here’s a gameplan for stakeholders navigating the post-House settlement landscape:
- Understand the revenue-sharing compliance framework. Clear documentation of who gets paid, how much, and fair market value standards is critical.
- Audit existing NIL agreements. Agreements over $600 require evaluation under fair market value rules per the NCAA NIL Policy.
- Know Title IX and its implications. Uneven payouts could spark legal challenges. For insight, see an article on Title IX Impact.
- Secure IP and media rights. Clearly define ownership of trademarks, likeness rights, and media content to avoid disputes. Explore IP issues related to NIL here.
- Monitor legal and financial implications. Develop robust policies; provide legal and financial literacy education for athletes and staff. For resources, see the NIL Resource Hub.
Final Whistle: It’s (a Totally New) Game
The old guard is gone. Amateurism has officially retired. Every athlete and athletic department must now rethink how they play the NIL and revenue-sharing game.
Stay tuned for more updates as this settlement shapes the future of college athletics.
At Fishman Stewart, we’re poised to guide college programs, athletic departments, and athletes navigating this new normal.
For more House and NIL insights, listen to Deb’s segment on WJR Radio, where she discusses the case history and its implications for college athletics, NIL, athlete compensation, and more.
About Deb Schneider
Deb Schneider is Of Counsel at Fishman Stewart. A serial entrepreneur, former educator, and trusted advisor at the intersection of sports, IP, and innovation. As the legal and commercial framework of college sports evolves, Deb leads Fishman Stewart at the forefront of complex IP and sports law issues. Contact Deb for media inquiries, interview requests, or questions about workshops and licensing.
Craving more? Subscribe to Fish Tank for fresh legal play-by-plays from the front lines.
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
Women’s sports are having a moment, and not a small one. And right alongside that rise: the business of women’s sports is heating up, including some surprisingly dramatic trademark battles.
The idea that someone might “own” a piece of DNA raises a slightly uncomfortable question: can you really patent something that exists inside all of us?
Forbes reported that more than 1.5 million bots on an AI agent-driven social network appear to have created a new religion for themselves, the Church of Molt, with congregants adopting the name of “Crustafarians.”
Every March, college basketball players get an opportunity to become household sensations overnight. In today’s NIL (Name Image Likeness) era, that moment can be a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity.
Behind the shamrocks and celebrations of St. Patrick's Day lies a surprisingly rich intersection with intellectual property.
Last week, PEI Licensing, LLC., the owner of the ORIGINAL PENGUIN brand (also known simply as PENGUIN) sued Pudgy Penguins Inc. in federal court in Florida over their respective penguin trademarks.
Matthew McConaughey recently obtained several trademark registrations with the U.S. Trademark Office in an effort to digitally capture and protect his entire persona.
Patents enable others to learn from, build upon, and improve the disclosed invention effectively. However, some have questioned whether they still work in today’s artificial intelligence (AI) landscape.
As athletes chase Olympic glory, the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) is fighting a different battle, one over public perception and trademark law.
Golf is entering a data driven era, and the 2026 PGA Show showed that the most important IP in the game is shifting.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
