House v. NCAA: Roster Caps, NIL Limits Under Fire as Judge Delays Final Approval

Judge Wilken delays final approval of the $2.8B House v. NCAA settlement, citing concerns over roster caps, NIL limits, and future athlete protections.

Eli Henderson | Apr 9, 2025

Apr 7, 2025; San Antonio, TX, USA; Florida Gators guard Walter Clayton Jr. (1) celebrates after winning the national championship game of the Final Four of the 2025 NCAA Tournament at the Alamodome. Mandatory Credit: Bob Donnan-Imagn Images / Bob Donnan-Imagn Images

Monday’s hearing in House v. NCAA didn’t deliver a final ruling, but no one expected it to. However, it provided a clear message from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken: the $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that could redefine college sports is close, but not quite ready.

“Basically, I think it is a good settlement, don’t quote me, but it is worth pursuing how to fix it,” Wilken said as the day wrapped in Oakland. Her words made it clear that approval is still on the table, but the deal needs some work before it gets there.

Among her most pressing concerns is the proposed imposition of roster limits across all sports. Football rosters would be capped at 105 players, down from an average of 128. Baseball, swimming, and other Olympic sports would see similar cuts. Thousands of walk-ons and partial-scholarship athletes could be left without a team. Wilken floated a “grandfather clause” to protect current players, calling it a low-cost fix with a high impact.

“It’s not that many people. It’s not that much money,” she noted. “It would save a lot of goodwill and angst and unhappiness from a lot of students and their parents.”

She also questioned the legality of binding future athletes to a 10-year settlement they have never agreed to. Her line about "the 10-year-old playing kickball" captured her unease and underscored the importance of due process, even in a rapidly evolving sports landscape.

Another issue drawing scrutiny was the NIL clearinghouse. Under the current plan, any athlete endorsement deal worth more than $600 would be reviewed to ensure it reflects fair market value. It is meant to prevent pay-for-play schemes from skirting the proposed $20.5 million school-specific cap. But Wilken pressed attorneys on whether this would unfairly limit athletes’ economic freedom.

A parade of objectors added their voices. LSU Tigers gymnast and social media star Livvy Dunne said the deal failed to capture her true market value. Former Washington Huskies linebacker Ben Burr-Kirven raised concerns about inconsistent payout logic. “It’s within the specific allocation that things get real squirrely,” he said.

Still, plaintiffs’ attorney Jeff Kessler remains confident. More than 118,000 athletes have filed or updated claims. Institutional support is high. “We think we can do what needs to be done to get it over the finish line,” Kessler told the court.

Wilken gave both sides one week to respond with solutions. If they succeed, the new system with direct pay for players, a reimagined roster model, and centralized NIL oversight could take effect by July 1.

But as Wilken made clear, change is not enough. It has to be equitable. The future of college sports is coming fast. Monday’s hearing showed it is still within reach, but only if the details are done right.

Recommended Articles