The House vs. NCAA lawsuit had all the elements of a long-drawn courtroom battle. Much hype but not nearly enough impact in the real world. But when U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken signed off on the final verdict — ending the NCAA’s history of treating college sports as amateurism — that last drop of ink marked the beginning of a new era. 

Institutions can now directly pay athletes. And the NCAA has to cough up $2.8B over 10 years to athletes who have played any college sports since 2016 but missed out on the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities. But beyond the noise of Revenue-generating programs, the House vs. NCAA courtroom saga has also opened a new avenue that brought a seismic change in college athletics: free agency. 

The inevitable free agency era

After the House Vs. NCAA settlement, the new contracts will have a new clause: players’ buyout. Now, if you have been looking into the current contracts, that shouldn’t come as a big surprise. Because, after the landmark NIL verdict, a similar clause is nicely tucked inside most athlete contracts. But now, that will be a prominent part of almost every deal that an athlete signs. Here is how this will work: 

• A college can sign a player to a $ 200,000 annual contract with a $200K buyout clause.
• The athlete will earn half of that at the start, and the rest when they complete the academic calendar year. 
• If they transfer at the end of the year, they will lose out on the latter half. 
• The new institution will have to pay $200K to the previous team, and that will be counted towards the $20.5M revenue cap. 

If that reads like a deterrent against the transfer, it’s exactly that. But then, college athletics is increasingly modelling itself after professional leagues. We already have pro-football-like front offices and General Managers in most schools. So, it shouldn’t be a surprise if Texas Tech, Longhorns, or Seminoles are willing to cough up a hefty buyout clause to snatch one Cooper Flagg or a Jarvis Jones.

Regardless, this will effectively create a college version of free agency. Star athletes now have greater leverage. They can switch between schools — the flow of which is unlikely to be one-sided. Despite the cynicism of money, athletes very well might pick a college outside of the Power Four, if the opportunity is great, the vision is strong, and the institution is more dedicated to player development. 

What a salaried NCAA might actually look like

Now the NCAA has insisted that athletes are well, athletes and not, what conventional wisdom (at least of a salaried sportswriter) suggests, employees. However, the definitional debate is unlikely to alter the legal course significantly. So the NCAA can win this argument, and call teenage superstars only athletes, and make everyone do the same. 

But nothing changes the fact that this brings college athletes far closer to being a salaried employee than NIL ever did. Or, could’ve done, for that matter. And that brings multiple questions: 

• Will these college programs come under the ambit of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)?
• What if another unionization effort arises like it did during early 2024 at the University of Dartmouth? 
• How will the universities navigate through this without violating Title IX’s gender equity statute?

None of these questions has a clear answer. For the record, On3 reported some women athletes have already alleged that the $2.8B back-pay violates the Title IX agreement, because it doesn’t directly address Title IX in the judgment. 

So, the House vs. NCAA settlement hasn’t ‘settled’ everything yet. It’s an ongoing and ever-evolving process that will continue to reshape the landscape of college sports like nothing has ever done before. More importantly, it also places us in front of a bigger question: are high school athletes next in line? 

Only time will offer some hint to that answer. But for now, colleges need to establish the right framework to navigate through this maze. Otherwise, NCAA Chief Charlie Baker’s dream of ‘stability’ will only be a dream.