The NCAA and the state attorneys general of Florida, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Tennessee, and New York have settled an antitrust lawsuit over NIL (name, image, and likeness) restrictions. The lawsuit specifically challenged the NCAA’s rules saying athletes couldn’t review potential NIL deals before they agreed to enroll at a particular school.
As part of the settlement, the NCAA has permanently agreed to change this rule. Athletes will be able to compare and negotiate financial offers without fear of retribution, potentially helping them earn more money during their collegiate careers.
“Student athletes should have the freedom to decide the course of their athletic careers
without restrictions that rig the game against them,” New York state AG Letitia James said in a statement. “The NCAA’s NIL rules put student athletes on an unfair playing field, preventing them from knowing about opportunities to get paid before they commit to a school. I am proud to have secured a better deal for these athletes that will ensure they are fully informed before committing to play.”
The lawsuit was first filed by the Virginia and Tennessee AGs in January 2024. Shortly after, a judge granted an injunction of the rule in 2024, allowing several months of what many have called “pay-for-play”: The NCAA couldn’t prevent schools, coaches, and donors from offering deals to players as part of their recruitment efforts. Combined with another antitrust lawsuit filed by state AGs over the NCAA’s transfer restrictions, the two lawsuits created a system likened to unrestricted free agency.
While athletes can negotiate deals in advance, they’ll still face other restrictions. If the House v. NCAA settlement is approved, players will be able to receive revenue-sharing dollars from their schools, but only up to a certain amount. The NCAA would be able to prohibit NIL deals offered by boosters or collectives that are above an athlete’s “fair market value” and therefore considered pay-for-play.
