Claim: If U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken grants the plaintiffs’ requested relief in the House v. NCAA motion, then $40 million rosters in college football will become a thing of the past.

In June 2025, Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California gave final approval to the landmark House v. NCAA class-action settlement, bringing years of legal battles over NCAA amateurism rules to a close and ushering in a new era for college athletics. Under the agreement, the NCAA committed to paying $2.8 billion to former college athletes whose names, images, and likenesses (NIL) had been used without compensation.

In the wake of the settlement, schools were permitted to share up to $20.5 million annually in athletic revenue with their athletes. Institutions gained broad discretion in how to distribute these funds, while athletes retained the ability to earn additional income through legitimate third-party NIL deals. Predictably, a financial arms race began to take shape. 

If one program allocated $25 million toward its football roster via transfer portal acquisitions and high school recruiting, another would push the bar even higher. Some major programs found ways to sidestep the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap by leveraging multimedia rights partnerships with companies like Learfield and Playfly Sports.

To curb such workarounds, the settlement established the College Sports Commission (CSC), an independent enforcement body backed by the Power conferences. Working alongside the NIL Go clearinghouse, the CSC reviews deals exceeding $600 to ensure they reflect fair market value and serve a legitimate business purpose.

In practice, however, the enforcement mechanism has led to the rejection of numerous deals that schools viewed as essential to remaining competitive off the field. In response, plaintiffs in the House v. NCAA case have filed a motion asking Judge Wilken to clarify that multimedia partners should not be classified as “Associated Entities or Individuals,” thereby placing them outside the CSC’s regulatory authority.

According to FOX6 News Milwaukee, if the court grants injunctive relief, roster spending, currently estimated at somewhere around $40 million for top programs, could surge to previously unseen levels.

Our Verdict: True

If the judge grants the plaintiffs’ request, it would remove the enforcement barrier. And more of these deals could bypass rigorous CSC review. So, top programs with lucrative multimedia contracts could add tens of millions in extra compensation without it counting against the official cap. Naturally, total roster spending at elite programs could rise further. 

However, the motion hasn’t been approved by the judge yet. The hearing is set for May 27, 2026, at 11:00 AM PT. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, who is assisting U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, will be presiding over the case. And the final ruling on the motion can be expected to take several days. 

Our Fact-Checking Sources

• The Athletic, June 6, 2025. Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
• ESPN, June 7, 2025. Judge OK’s $2.8B settlement, paving way for colleges to pay athletes
• Sports Business Journal, August 29, 2025. College revenue streams hitting new strategic approaches amid athlete sharing
• ESPN, January 13, 2026. Commission rejected 500-plus NIL deals worth nearly $15 million
• Bradley, January 21, 2026. Enforcing After House: The College Sports Commission and the Future of NIL Regulation
• Sportico, April 20, 2026. House v. NCAA Class Counsel Asks Court to Rein in CSC’s ‘Overreach’
• Facebook, April 22, 2026. Facebook Post by FOX6 News Milwaukee