Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
To more concisely sum it up...

The NCAA's position was that college sports were a part of the overall educational experience. These aren't employees! They're students! And all this coaching and competition is educational!

The opposition said "Well, then why do you have these transfer rules? If this is all educational, then why can't they transfer freely like they can in all other educational ventures?"

And as more and more litigation played out, the courts decided players were entitled to their own NIL, and the NCAA was in violation of antitrust laws, and the players were/are employees, and the players who had been denied access to the free market are now entitled to $2.8 in damages. And who knows if/when all this litigation going to stop?? And what will college sports look like when it finally does??


While many believe the House v. NCAA settlement will stabilize college athletics, it cannot stop the tsunami of challenges facing the system:
1. Antitrust Challenges: Players can contest the revenue-sharing caps on antitrust grounds, arguing they unfairly suppress compensation.
2. Unstoppable NIL Payments: Without federal legislation, NIL collectives will continue funneling large payments to select athletes, even as players receive a share of school revenues.
3. Unregulated Transfers: Schools cannot regulate athletes transferring every year in pursuit of bigger NIL deals, creating chaos in roster management and competitive balance.
4. Title IX Litigation: Revenue-sharing payments will likely spark Title IX lawsuits from women’s programs, citing disproportionate compensation compared to male athletes in revenue-generating sports.
5. Employee Status Fallout: If the NLRB grants student-athletes employee status, it will create an unsustainable two-tiered system of compensation, potentially rendering revenue sharing obsolete.

The instability in college athletics is far from over—it is just beginning. And in the end, you can’t impose lasting control over a system driven by money, competition, and legal challenges without sweeping, enforceable reform. Unfortunately, no politician has the desire to tackle such reform, recognizing that any action risks being seen as a restraint of trade.