The New College Sports Economy: Understanding NIL, Revenue Sharing and Athlete Opportunities After House

Co-Authored by summer associates Alex Blackwell, Sam O’Donnell-Hoff and James Cohee

Introduction

College athletics entered a new era on July 1, 2025, when the House v. NCAA settlement (House or the settlement) took effect. While Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) opportunities had already transformed the landscape, the settlement fundamentally altered the economic model of college sports by allowing institutions to directly compensate athletes through revenue-sharing arrangements. For the first time, athletes may receive compensation from multiple sources simultaneously — including institutional revenue-sharing payments, NIL collective opportunities (organizations formed to facilitate NIL deals and athlete compensation), endorsement agreements, licensing arrangements, appearances, camps, clinics and other third-party activities. At the same time, universities, collectives, brands, agents and advisors must navigate a rapidly evolving legal and regulatory framework. Perhaps most importantly, the House settlement did not just reshape the economics of college sports; it created an entirely new set of legal, business and compliance considerations.

Athletes today must think not only about maximizing compensation but also about contract negotiations, transfer implications, immigration considerations, tax planning, intellectual property protection and long-term brand development. Institutions face difficult questions regarding roster management, Title IX compliance, compensation structures and NCAA enforcement. Businesses and collectives must ensure that NIL opportunities are properly structured and compliant with evolving regulatory requirements. Understanding these issues is critical for anyone participating in the modern college sports economy. The decisions athletes, institutions and businesses make may have significant legal, financial and competitive consequences for years to come.

Understanding the House Settlement and Revenue Sharing

The settlement represented one of the most significant developments in the history of college athletics. Among other things, the settlement:

• Provided more than $2.5 billion in back pay to eligible former and current athletes;
• Authorized schools to directly compensate athletes through revenue-sharing arrangements;
• Replaced scholarship limits with roster limits in many sports; and
• Established a new oversight framework for certain compensation arrangements.

Prior to the settlement, athletes generally could only receive compensation from third parties through NIL opportunities. Following the settlement’s implementation, institutions may directly compensate athletes from athletics department revenues.

Revenue-sharing programs are subject to an annual cap tied to a percentage of average revenues generated by institutions in the major athletic conferences, commonly referred to as the “Power Conferences.” For purposes of the settlement calculation, these currently include the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Notre Dame. While schools remain subject to an overall spending limit, they generally retain discretion over how compensation is allocated among sports and individual athletes.

As a result, compensation models vary considerably from institution to institution. While football and men’s basketball programs often receive the largest share of available funds, schools continue to develop different approaches based on institutional priorities, competitive considerations and available resources. Importantly, revenue-sharing compensation does not eliminate traditional NIL opportunities. Instead, it creates an additional compensation stream that exists alongside the broader NIL marketplace.

Recent College Sports Commission Developments

The regulatory landscape continues to evolve. On June 23, 2026, the College Sports Commission (CSC) announced a significant modification to its enforcement approach for Associated NIL deals. Effective July 1, 2026, most Associated NIL deals between $600 and $15,000 will not undergo Range of Compensation (RoC) review unless a student-athlete exceeds $50,000 in aggregate Associated NIL deals during an academic year. The CSC explained that the change is intended to focus enforcement resources on higher-dollar transactions while continuing to require that all Associated NIL deals satisfy applicable business-purpose requirements and otherwise comply with NCAA rules.

NIL Is Not Dead

One of the most common misconceptions following House is that NIL has been replaced by revenue sharing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Revenue sharing represents an additional source of compensation — not a substitute for NIL. Many of the highest-earning athletes in college sports continue to generate significant income through traditional NIL opportunities, including:

• Brand endorsements;
• Social media sponsorships;
• Merchandise and licensing agreements;
• Personal appearances;
• Camps and clinics;
• Autograph signings; and
• Collective-supported opportunities.

For many athletes, particularly those with strong personal brands and substantial social media followings, traditional NIL opportunities may continue to generate more income than institutional revenue-sharing payments. The post-House environment therefore requires athletes to evaluate multiple compensation streams simultaneously. Athletes should understand not only the value of a school’s revenue-sharing offer but also how that opportunity fits within their broader NIL strategy. A smaller institutional payment may ultimately be more attractive if it is paired with stronger NIL opportunities, greater brand exposure, enhanced media visibility or improved long-term earning potential. In today’s marketplace, maximizing compensation requires understanding both revenue sharing and traditional NIL — not choosing between them.

What We Are Seeing in the Marketplace

Having represented athletes, businesses, collectives, educational institutions and other stakeholders in the NIL ecosystem, we see several themes emerge in the post-House landscape.

First, revenue-sharing arrangements have quickly become a significant recruiting and roster-management tool. However, compensation structures vary considerably from institution to institution, making it increasingly important for athletes to evaluate the totality of an opportunity rather than focus solely on a compensation figure.

Second, NIL remains an important source of compensation, particularly for athletes with strong personal brands, social media followings or significant visibility within their sport. In many instances, third-party NIL opportunities may still exceed direct institutional compensation.

Third, transfer-related provisions have become increasingly important. Athletes are paying closer attention to buyout provisions, repayment obligations, restrictions on future opportunities and the impact that transferring may have on existing compensation arrangements.

In addition, the College Sports Commission continues to refine the statistical methodology used to evaluate compensation submitted through NIL Go. As additional market data becomes available, institutions, athletes and businesses should expect continued adjustments to the RoC model and other compliance processes. These refinements illustrate that NIL oversight remains an evolving system rather than a static set of rules.

Finally, questions involving international athletes, athlete employment status, Title IX and NCAA enforcement continue to evolve. Athletes, institutions and businesses should expect continued changes in both the legal and business landscape surrounding college athletics.

Five Legal Issues Every Athlete Should Understand Before Signing a Revenue-Sharing Agreement

1. Revenue-Sharing Agreements Are Legal Contracts

Although revenue-sharing arrangements are often discussed as compensation packages, they are first and foremost legal contracts. These agreements frequently address compensation structure, intellectual property rights, exclusivity obligations, termination rights, transfer restrictions, conduct requirements, confidentiality provisions and dispute resolution procedures.

In our experience, athletes often focus heavily on compensation figures while overlooking other provisions that may ultimately have a greater impact on the overall value of an agreement, including transfer restrictions, buyout obligations, intellectual property rights and termination provisions. Understanding both the benefits and the obligations contained in an agreement is critical before signing.

2. Term Length Matters

Athletes should carefully consider the duration of any proposed agreement. Athletic performance, marketability, coaching staff, roster composition and compensation structures can change dramatically over time. A multi-year agreement may provide stability and certainty, but it may also limit flexibility if an athlete’s value increases substantially. Athletes should evaluate whether a proposed agreement aligns with both their short-term and long-term goals.

3. Transfer Restrictions and Buyout Provisions

Transfer-related provisions have become one of the most heavily negotiated aspects of modern athlete compensation agreements. Many agreements contain provisions addressing transfer portal entry, buyout obligations, repayment requirements, termination of future payments and continued use of NIL rights following transfer.

Not all transfer-related provisions are created equal. Some may simply terminate future payments, while others may require repayment of previously received compensation or impose significant buyout obligations. Understanding these distinctions before signing can prevent costly surprises later.

4. Conduct and Morality Clauses

Many NIL and revenue-sharing agreements contain conduct or morality provisions that permit termination if an athlete engages in conduct deemed detrimental to the institution or business partner. Because these provisions are often drafted broadly, athletes should understand exactly what conduct may trigger termination and whether the agreement provides meaningful procedural protections.

5. Dispute Resolution Procedures

Many compensation agreements require disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than traditional litigation. While arbitration may provide efficiency and privacy, it often limits appeal rights and may require athletes to resolve disputes in unfamiliar forums. Athletes should understand how disputes will be resolved before agreeing to any dispute resolution provision.

International Athletes Face Unique Challenges

International athletes continue to face a unique set of legal challenges. Most international athletes compete in the United States on F-1 student visas, which impose significant restrictions on employment and income-generating activities.

One of the central challenges is that immigration law and NIL law do not always align. Activities that may be entirely permissible under NCAA rules may nevertheless create immigration concerns. Certain visa classifications, such as P-1 and O-1 visas, may provide greater flexibility for qualifying athletes. However, those options are often expensive, highly specialized and unavailable to many athletes. Likewise, certain passive licensing arrangements may present fewer concerns than agreements requiring active promotional services.

Revenue-sharing arrangements create additional uncertainty. Although direct institutional compensation differs conceptually from traditional NIL arrangements, many of the same immigration questions remain. This is one of the most unsettled areas in the NIL marketplace. Because immigration consequences can be severe, international athletes should avoid assuming what may or may not be permissible and instead seek individualized legal guidance before entering compensation arrangements.

Athletes Must Think Like Entrepreneurs

The modern college athlete is no longer simply a student and an athlete. Increasingly, college athletes are entrepreneurs.

Today’s athletes routinely negotiate contracts, manage social media brands, participate in marketing campaigns, earn compensation through multiple revenue streams and make business decisions that can have long-term financial consequences. Accordingly, athletes should begin viewing themselves as businesses.

Build Business Infrastructure Early

As compensation opportunities increase, athletes should consider whether it makes sense to establish formal business infrastructure. For many athletes, that may include forming a limited liability company (LLC).

Operating through an LLC may provide liability protection, improved professionalism, better contract administration, enhanced financial organization and greater flexibility as opportunities expand. We routinely advise athletes that building business infrastructure should not be viewed as a reactive exercise undertaken only after significant compensation arrives. Rather, establishing the appropriate legal, tax and financial framework early can help position athletes for long-term success while minimizing unnecessary risk.

Protect Your Brand

An athlete’s brand may become their most valuable asset. Athletes should consider protecting names, logos, slogans and other intellectual property through appropriate trademark strategies where warranted.

Understand the Tax Consequences

Compensation creates tax obligations. Athletes receiving substantial NIL or revenue-sharing income should understand estimated tax payments, business deductions, entity elections and other tax considerations before problems arise.

Build the Right Team

The most successful athletes rarely operate alone. Athletes may benefit from working with attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, marketing professionals and other trusted advisors.

Practical Takeaways for Athletes

Before signing any NIL or revenue-sharing agreement, athletes should:

• Understand transfer-related consequences.
• Review buyout and repayment provisions carefully.
• Evaluate term length and future flexibility.
• Understand conduct and morality clauses.
• Review dispute resolution procedures.
• Consider whether an LLC is appropriate.
• Protect valuable intellectual property.
• Understand tax obligations before receiving compensation.
• Consult qualified legal counsel before signing.
• If applicable, consult immigration counsel before entering compensation arrangements.

Practical Takeaways for Schools, Collectives and Brands

Institutions and businesses operating in the NIL marketplace should:

• Review compensation agreements for compliance with applicable rules.
• Understand immigration implications for international athletes.
• Coordinate with legal, compliance and tax professionals.
• Carefully evaluate transfer-related provisions.
• Maintain appropriate documentation supporting compensation arrangements.
• Ensure compensation reflects legitimate business activity.
• Avoid compensation structures that could be viewed as circumventing institutional revenue-sharing limits, including consulting or payment arrangements involving agents or third parties that lack an independent, legitimate business purpose.
• Monitor ongoing developments involving College Sports Commission enforcement, Title IX, athlete employment issues and evolving NIL guidance.

The NCAA’s New Age-Based Eligibility Model

In June 2026, the NCAA adopted a new age-based eligibility model that will significantly alter roster management and athlete compensation planning. Under the new framework, Division I athletes generally receive five years of eligibility without traditional redshirts, and the eligibility clock begins at initial full-time collegiate enrollment or the academic year following an athlete’s nineteenth birthday, whichever occurs first.

Although the long-term impact remains uncertain, the rule may have significant implications for recruiting, transfer portal activity, roster construction and revenue-sharing decisions. Institutions may increasingly evaluate athlete compensation through the lens of a five-year participation window rather than the traditional redshirt model. Likewise, athletes may place greater emphasis on immediate playing opportunities and long-term compensation potential when evaluating schools.

The rule may also create additional considerations for international athletes, junior college athletes and athletes who delay enrollment. As with many recent NCAA developments, legal challenges and future modifications remain possible. Stakeholders should continue monitoring implementation guidance and evolving interpretations as the rule is phased into operation.

What Comes Next?

Although House resolved many questions, it created new ones. Several issues will likely shape the next phase of college athletics, including athlete employment status, Title IX challenges, NCAA enforcement authority, continued litigation involving compensation restrictions and governance structures, and ongoing refinement of the College Sports Commission’s NIL enforcement policies. Stakeholders should expect additional guidance regarding compensation review methodologies, institutional reporting obligations and the treatment of arrangements involving agents, collectives and other third-party entities.

While the House settlement established a new framework for athlete compensation, many questions remain unanswered. Future litigation, legislative proposals and regulatory developments will likely continue to shape how institutions compensate athletes, how NIL opportunities are regulated and the extent to which athletes may ultimately be treated as employees. Stakeholders should expect continued evolution rather than long-term stability.

Conclusion

The House v. NCAA settlement may ultimately be remembered as one of the most significant developments in the history of college athletics. While it created new opportunities for athletes to monetize their athletic abilities and personal brands, it also introduced new legal, business, tax, immigration and compliance considerations that did not previously exist.

Questions surrounding athlete employment status, Title IX, NCAA governance, transfer restrictions and institutional compensation models remain unresolved. Additional litigation, legislative action and regulatory developments are likely to continue shaping the future of college athletics for years to come.

For athletes, schools, collectives, brands and other stakeholders, success in this environment will require more than simply understanding the rules. It will require proactive planning, strategic decision-making and a comprehensive understanding of both the opportunities and risks presented by the modern college sports economy. Those who adapt most effectively will be best positioned to succeed in the next era of college athletics.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The laws, regulations, NCAA rules, College Sports Commission guidance, and institutional policies governing college athletics continue to evolve rapidly, and the information contained in this article may change as new legal and regulatory developments occur. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances before taking action based on the information contained herein. 

For more information or questions, contact Christopher Pham.