House v. NCAA: from an agreed settlement to a judge’s approval over objections
The NCAA and the five autonomy conferences agreed to settlement terms on May 23, 2024. On June 6, 2025, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California approved it over objections to the cap on what athletes can be paid.
NCAA and the five autonomy conferences (joint statement)
The five autonomy conferences and the NCAA agreeing to settlement terms is an important step in the continuing reform of college sports that will provide benefits to student-athletes and provide clarity in college athletics across all divisions for years to come.
The judge, the NCAA and the lawyers
Apr 7 to Jun 13, 2025
Supports the settlement
Steve Berman, Co-lead counsel for the class, Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman’s sports litigation attorneys have fought the NCAA’s limits to scholarships and pay since 2004 and this result — 20 years later — is a fantastic win for hundreds of thousands of college athletes …
Charlie Baker, NCAA president
Approving the agreement reached by the NCAA, the defendant conferences and student-athletes in the settlement opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports.
Criticizes the settlement or reports criticism of it
Some critics argue that the salary pool constitutes illegal wage fixing and a violation of the Sherman Act because the $20.5 million limit restricts high-revenue-generating athletes from earning more than they could earn in the free market.
The court’s own words or a judge’s remarks
Judge Claudia Wilken, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California
We are not adjudicating if it is an antitrust violation ... We are adjudicating whether it is a proper balance of risks and rewards …
Some objectors argue that the Pool cap is unfair to class members because, in their view, there is no valid reason for imposing any kind of cap on student-athlete compensation and benefits. The Court overrules these objections. The Pool spending cap does not alter the Court’s finding, above, that the SA is fair, reasonable, and adequate to all class members.
U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Jun 6, 2025
Opinion, via CourtListener (storage.courtlistener.com); taken from the court docket and matched against the PDF text with the pleading margin line numbers (1-28) removed
Related
Court rulings on college athletics
- Aug 8, 2014O’Bannon v. NCAA ruling
- Jun 21, 2021NCAA v. Alston: the Supreme Court and limits on athlete benefits
- Nov 14, 2023Oregon State and Washington State win control of the Pac-12 board
- Feb 23, 2024Tennessee and Virginia v. NCAA: the preliminary injunction
- House v. NCAA settlementThis page
- Dec 18, 2024Pavia v. NCAA: the preliminary injunction
Sources
News and releases
- NCAA.org, May 23, 2024·Archived copy
“Joint statement on the agreement of settlement terms”
Statement, via the NCAA; the joint statement of NCAA President Charlie Baker and the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC commissioners
- Sportico, Apr 7, 2025·Archived copy
“House v. NCAA Settlement Approval in Sight, but Judge Wants Tweaks”
Remarks, as quoted by Sportico; made at the April 7, 2025 final approval hearing
- NCAA.org, Jun 6, 2025·Archived copy
“A Letter from NCAA President Charlie Baker”
- Hagens Berman, Jun 6, 2025·Archived copy
“Court Grants Final Approval to Historic Settlement in NCAA College Athlete Name, Image and Likeness Antitrust Litigation”
Release published by Hagens Berman; the law firm representing the class
- U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Jun 6, 2025·Archived copy
“In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal.), Opinion Regarding Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement, Dkt. 978”
- WilmerHale, Jun 13, 2025·Archived copy
“Final Approval for House v. NCAA Settlement Brings New Era, More Litigation”