The NCAA’s long-standing model of amateurism took a historic blow last week, as a federal judge finalized the $2.8 billion House v. NCAA antitrust settlement, paving the way for schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time.
With payments set to begin on July 1, 2025, the decision marks a seismic shift in how college sports will operate.
Yet amid celebrations from revenue-sport athletes and cautious optimism from administrators, the future remains deeply uncertain for Olympic sports, especially track and field and cross country.
The Death of Amateurism
At its core, the House settlement dismantles the NCAA’s previous prohibition on direct compensation for athletes.
Filed in 2020 by swimmer Grant House and basketball player Sedona Prince, the lawsuit challenged restrictions on revenue sharing from media rights, arguing that athletes deserved a cut of the billions pouring into college sports.
Judge Claudia Wilken approved the settlement on June 6, greenlighting a plan that will:
- Distribute $2.8 billion in backpay to athletes who competed between 2016 and 2021 without name, imagine and likeness (NIL) benefits.
- Allow schools to directly share up to $20.5 million annually with athletes beginning in the 2025-26 season.
- Establish a 10-year revenue-sharing framework, with caps rising at a minimum of 4% annually.
College athletes are still allowed to sign third-party NIL deals, but any agreement over $600 must now pass through a digital clearinghouse, “NIL Go,” administered by Deloitte. Additionally, an enforcement arm called “CAP” will audit school payments to ensure compliance.
How the Money Breaks Down
While the settlement is groundbreaking, its financial distribution favors revenue-generating sports. According to the formula widely expected to be adopted by most schools:
- 75% of shared revenue will go to football players.
- 15% to men’s basketball.
- 5% to women’s basketball.
- 5% split across all remaining sports, including track and field, cross country, swimming, tennis, and others.
This imbalance has drawn immediate legal scrutiny.
On June 11, eight female athletes filed an appeal arguing that the backpay structure violates Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education.
The athletes allege the formula deprives women of $1.1 billion in compensation and overlooks legal obligations for gender equity.
Attorney Ashlyn Hare, representing the plaintiffs, called the plan “a massive error” that would “cause irreparable harm to women’s sports” if left uncorrected.
Implications for Track and Field and Cross Country
For sports like track and cross country, whose athletes make up large rosters and compete in three seasons annually, the implications are both murky and alarming.
Here’s why:
- Roster Cuts Are Coming: The settlement allows schools to “grandfather in” current players, but it also introduces new roster caps. In total, nearly 5,000 athletes across NCAA sports may be trimmed. Although track programs have flexibility through equivalency scholarships, the pressure to allocate dollars efficiently will be intense.
- Financial Triage May Favor Fewer Sports: Schools are still required to comply with Title IX—but with up to $20.5 million now earmarked for direct athlete compensation, some athletic departments may look to consolidate offerings. Smaller programs—especially those without consistent national success—could be deemed expendable.
- Potential for Redistribution: The Big East and other conferences without high-budget football programs (e.g., Ivy League, WCC) are expected to allocate more funds to basketball and other sports. Track athletes at these schools may benefit more than their peers in Power Five conferences, where football dominates budgeting.
- Olympic Pathways Under Threat: College is a critical development pipeline for the Olympics. According to data from USA Track & Field and the NCAA, over 85% of Team USA track athletes competed at the NCAA level. Any disruption to collegiate programs would ripple up to the elite level.
Title IX Challenge Looms
While the NCAA insists Title IX doesn’t apply to this antitrust settlement, legal experts disagree.
Title IX law mandates equal treatment and funding across men’s and women’s sports in any federally funded education program. Given the stark pay imbalance between male and female athletes in the backpay formula (90% to men’s football and basketball players), the lawsuit may have traction.
Judge Wilken acknowledged these concerns during the approval hearing but allowed the settlement to proceed, stating that Title IX issues are “not within the scope” of the antitrust case. However, she added that athletes were free to pursue separate legal claims.
If the appeal succeeds, the entire backpay structure could be revised, delaying payments and potentially reshaping how current revenue-sharing models are structured.
What Comes Next?
- July 1, 2025: Direct NIL compensation from schools begins.
- Next 9–12 months: Title IX appeal winds through the court system.
- Ongoing: The NCAA and the newly formed College Sports Commission (CSC) will monitor and enforce compliance, relying heavily on third-party vendors.
For now, college track and field stands at a crossroads. While the House settlement avoids a catastrophic financial collapse for the NCAA, it does so by prioritizing revenue sports in a way that could leave Olympic disciplines fighting for scraps.
