House v. NCAA Settlement Revenue Split: Who Gets What?

NIL deals as we know them are likely a thing of the past. The NCAA and various athletes entered into a settlement (House v. NCAA settlement) that will allow universities to directly pay the student-athletes. Prior to this settlement, collectives, or boosters, were allowed to pay student-athletes. These payments are commonly known as NIL deals.

With schools now being able to pay the students directly, and with the settlement placing restrictions on NIL deals, those deals are likely a thing of the past. The current NIL market is akin to the Napster era; if anyone wants a quarterback to play for their favorite team, they can pay that player any amount they want. That’s no longer the case under the House settlement.

The House settlement provides each university within the Power 5 conferences with $23.1 million to allocate towards paying their student-athletes. The universities will distribute the revenue-sharing funds to the various sports at the university at their own discretion. The schools’ athletic directors will likely be charged with creating the distribution plan. Presumably, the money will be apportioned differently among the players within those specific sports.

What would an equitable distribution plan look like?

The House settlement provided the aggregate revenue each men’s and women’s sport generated in the Power 5 conferences and what percentage that revenue represented in total revenue. Men’s sports generate approximately 97.8% of the revenue, while women’s sports generate 2.2%.

If every school were to be equitable with the money - that is, follow the percentages provided in the House lawsuit - the split would provide men’s sports in Power 5 conferences with approximately $22,591,800.00 of the $23.1 million. Women’s sports in the Power 5 conferences would receive a total of $508,200.00.

Within the women’s sports at those Power 5 schools, basketball (at .92% of total revenue) would receive the highest share at $212,520 to field a competitive roster. If there are twelve players on the team that would amount to each player receiving $17,710.00 per season. Most likely, the players won’t receive the exact same dollar amount; a player like Caitlin Clark would be paid a higher share.

By comparison, a football program at a Power 5 school would receive $17,879,400 per team. With the expanded roster size of 105 players, each player would be paid $170,280.00 per season in an equitable plan. An equitable split, however, is not a likely scenario; Cam Ward would be paid significantly more than Maimi’s second-string kicker.

How each school earmarks the $23.1 million will be interesting and, likely, controversial. Power 5 schools with stronger basketball teams will divvy up the revenue-sharing money differently than an Ohio State University or Georgia, which have strong football programs. The women’s basketball program at UCLA will demand more of the $23.1 million than $212,520.

The $23.1 million allocation opens the door to inevitable heated debates. Athletic directors will make tough decisions as schools navigate balancing fairness, financial realities, and remaining competitive. How athletic directors draw up their game plans will not only shape the future of student-athlete compensation, but will also reveal where each program's priorities truly lie.