The House v. NCAA Settlement — What It Means for the Future of College Sports

This summer brought a seismic change to college athletics. In June 2025, the House v. NCAA lawsuit reached a final settlement, marking the first time in history that U.S. universities can directly share athletic revenue with their student-athletes.

The case was led by Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, alongside other athletes who challenged the NCAA’s century-old restrictions on athlete pay. Their argument was simple: the NCAA’s rules limiting earnings from name, image, and likeness (NIL) and prohibiting direct compensation were anticompetitive.

From Amateurism to Direct Pay

Beginning in the 2025–26 school year, Division I schools that opt into the settlement—most notably those in what were known as the “Power 5” conferences (plus Notre Dame)—will be allowed to share up to $20.5 million annually with athletes. This figure will rise by roughly 4 percent each year for the next decade.

The term Power 5 refers to the five most prestigious and financially dominant conferences in NCAA Division I: the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC. These leagues have historically commanded the largest TV deals, biggest stadiums, and most nationally ranked teams.

Due to recent conference realignment, the Pac-12 has essentially dissolved, leaving four major power conferences—often called the Power 4—plus Notre Dame, which competes independently in football but is treated as part of this group for major NCAA policy decisions.

On the surface, this change is great news. It formalizes an earning pathway for student-athletes and places them in a compensation model that feels much closer to professional sports.

But for Olympic sports like golf, which already operate on smaller budgets, the picture is more complicated.

Golf’s Place in a Football and Basketball World

While every athlete at an opt-in school is technically eligible for revenue sharing, football and men’s basketball are expected to take the lion’s share. These sports generate the most income for universities, and many athletic departments will prioritize them when distributing funds.

College golf, while prestigious, is a non-revenue sport at nearly every NCAA school. It relies heavily on university funding, alumni donations, and private sponsors. Even powerhouse programs rarely break even financially.

When $20.5 million in new revenue-sharing obligations are introduced, schools may look to cover those costs by reducing budgets in other sports. For golf programs, that could mean:

• Smaller travel budgets and fewer competitive opportunities

• Reduced scholarships, making it harder to attract top recruits

• Leaner rosters due to new roster limits in the settlement

• In extreme cases, the risk of program cuts

  
  

Title IX — A Safety Net With Limits

Title IX still requires schools to maintain gender equity in athletics, including roster spots and scholarship opportunities. This law will protect women’s golf teams from disproportionate cuts compared to men’s programs.

However, balancing Title IX compliance with the financial demands of revenue sharing will be tricky. Already, a group of female athletes has filed a legal challenge to ensure the settlement does not create inequities in funding.

What This Means for Aspiring College Golfers

For junior golfers with NCAA ambitions, the settlement changes the landscape. The good news is that NIL opportunities remain strong, and in theory, golf athletes at opt-in schools could receive direct payments.

The challenge is that the funds available for golf will likely be modest compared to revenue sports. Recruiting strategies may shift, with schools focusing their largest budgets on attracting football and basketball talent.

This means future golfers may need to:

• Target schools with a strong commitment to golf, not just those with big athletic brands

• Explore NIL deals with golf-specific sponsors and local businesses

• Consider the growing opportunities in Division II, NAIA, or international programs where resources may be more evenly spread

  
  

The Bottom Line for College Golf

The House v. NCAA settlement is historic, but its benefits will not be distributed equally. Golf, like many Olympic sports, risks losing institutional support if schools reallocate resources toward their most lucrative programs.

For athletes, coaches, and families, the key will be finding programs that continue to invest in golf as a core sport—not just one that survives on the sidelines.

While the settlement redefines what it means to be a student-athlete in the NCAA, it also serves as a reminder that in the new college sports economy, passion and commitment from the institution matter more than ever.