House Settlement Draws Closer After Sides Amend Roster Limits Proposal

The landmark settlement in the House vs. NCAA antitrust case appears one step closer to being finalized by the U.S. district court overseeing the matter after both plaintiffs and defendants submitted a notable tweak to proposed roster limits that were at the heart of a two week delay to the process.

Following a stern warning last month from Judge Claudia Wilken that made it clear she would not issue a final approval of the settlement if the parties didn’t adjust previously agreed upon limitations capping the number of players on rosters, lawyers for the Power Five conferences and the NCAA spent much of the past week discussing various models that would allow current players to be grandfathered into the proposed new system that was set to more stringently cap the number of players each team could carry. According to a new filing that was made just before a court-issued deadline on Wednesday, an interim solution was reached that all involved hope will be the final hurdle to clear in resolving the $2.8 billion case that is poised to significantly reshape college athletics for the next decade and beyond.

Key to the updated settlement terms is that schools will be allowed—yet notably not required—to keep players around who otherwise would have seen their spots eliminated in order to comply with the new caps on team roster limits. While many programs had either already nudged athletes out the door or downright confirmed player cuts in advance of the roster limits coming into effect this summer, the filing instead allows an avenue for those impacted to remain enrolled and exempt from the already agreed upon roster limits for their sport.

The decision applies to those currently on a program’s roster who would have been cut, those previously cut this past year as a result of the new limits and even will include incoming high school recruits who enrolled at a school but had their position eliminated as a result of the settlement.

Interestingly, if an athlete is not retained by their current school, they can still maintain their grandfathered status after transferring and would not count against the overall roster limit at their new school.

“Any athlete who would have lost their roster spot (or a promised roster spot) for the 2025–2026 academic year due to the immediate implementation of roster limits will be exempt from any roster limits at any Division I institution, for the duration of their college athletics careers,” said the filing.

Such a compromise, the product of near round the clock discussions among general counsels, the conferences and NCAA lawyers, addresses one of the chief concerns from over a dozen objectors to the House settlement, which provides for greater opportunities for some athletes (such as baseball players splitting a limited number of scholarships to an entire team potentially receiving full rides) while providing a more structured nature in terms of the overall number of players on each team. Most power conference schools are already planning on adding millions of dollars in additional scholarships as a result even if the total number of athletes could decrease in certain areas.

Though changes concerning the roster limits and how some athletes would be treated under them have been made, it does not necessarily guarantee final approval of the settlement. Still, Judge Wilken has indicated several times—verbally at a hearing in early April and later in a written order shortly thereafter—that she was strongly leaning toward doing so if the concerns over roster limits could be abated.

It remains unclear as to whether the potential grandfathering in of players impacted by the roster limits would ultimately satisfy the 75-year-old presiding over her final case in the Northern District of California, but many involved in the process expressed optimism in the days leading up to Wednesday’s filing that things remain on course for a final approval and eventual implementation later on this summer.

If the judge declines to grant final approval, however, it’s possible she could still send attorneys back to the drawing board for additional changes to the settlement. Setting a trial date also remains in the cards.

Despite such uncertainty, work continues on the campus (and conference office) level in anticipation of a July 1 start date that is rapidly drawing near for universities to implement other key parts of the settlement. A controversial clearinghouse for NIL deals is set to come online in the next few weeks and most athletic departments are already moving ahead with the biggest aspect of the settlement on the bottom line: revenue sharing with athletes of up to $20.5 million for the 2025–26 school year.

The NCAA has also already made changes to its voluminous rule book to take into consideration the terms of the settlement as well.

Such plans technically remain in a state of limbo until final approval is given but, after Wednesday’s latest filing, there’s increased hope the next step in the lengthy process will be the final one.