Major NIL changes now in play in House v. NCAA antitrust case

As the NCAA continues its highly publicized efforts to land federal NIL legislation, proceedings in a Northern California courtroom could play a much larger role in shaping the future college athletics model.

While not unexpected, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s decision Friday to grant class-action status for the injunctive relief class of the House v. NCAA antitrust case could carry enormous implications.

It opens the door to the possibility of schools being able to provide NIL payments to athletes for any reason, including for athletic performance. 

When broached during Thursday’s hearing, NCAA lead attorney Rakesh Kilaru did not oppose class certification for the injunctive class. For defendants – the NCAA and power conferences – it raises the stakes significantly.

Mit Winter, a college sports attorney at Kennyhertz Perry, said the court will now decide whether the NCAA’s remaining NIL compensation rules violate antitrust law and should be enjoined.

And stakes could still grow exponentially higher.

The injunctive class is about potentially changing NIL rules. That class encompasses all Division I athletes who competed from June 15, 2020 – when the complaint was filed – through the case’s judgment.

Class-action status for three other damages classes that Wilken will decide on carries consequential financial implications, potentially totaling in excess of $4 billion.

Those classes include one for Division I football and men’s basketball players who have competed collegiately since June 15, 2016. One for women’s basketball players from the same date and an additional sports class – including all other sports – from the same date are also in play.

Wilken ruled against NCAA in O’Bannon and Alston

All that may be on the line is the future of college sports as we know it. 

“When you combine all of these factors with the pending Johnson [v. NCAA] case and the NLRB proceedings, we’re looking at a situation where the entire current college athletics model could be over,” Winter told On3.

The critical issue is whether current and former athletes deserve NIL backpay and a slice of TV rights revenue. 

Here are the potential dollars at stake: Kilaru said athletes possibly covered in the suit could receive as much as $400,000 apiece in broadcast revenue alone during their college careers. 

Plaintiffs include former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, former Illinois football player Tymir Oliver  and TCU basketball player Sedona Prince. 

NCAA counsel said both parties continue settlement discussions. A trial is scheduled for Jan. 27, 2025, but Wilken raised the possibility the trial date will be moved. Wilken is the same judge who ruled against the NCAA in O’Bannon and Alston at the trial court level.