In re College Athlete NIL Litigation

  1. November 06, 2025

    Cal Poly Athletes Rip NIL Deal For Impact On Women's Sports

    California Polytechnic State University athletes criticized the NCAA's $2.78 billion name, image and likeness settlement, telling a California federal judge during a hearing Thursday that it has harmed women's sports and caused inequitable cuts, while class counsel defended the deal, saying that it specifically preserves class members' Title IX rights.

  2. October 15, 2025

    Cal Poly Athletes Told Objections To NIL Deal Don't Hold Water

    The members of a college swimming and diving team that was eliminated by its school last March should blame the school itself for its demise, not the negotiators of a $2.78 billion class action athlete compensation settlement, the NCAA and the athlete class representatives told a California federal court in response to their objections.

  3. September 26, 2025

    Off The Bench: NCAA Mostly Beats Trans Suit, Faces Another

    In this week's Off The Bench, the NCAA beat the majority of claims over its former transgender policy, but faced a new lawsuit in New York, along with the State University of New York, stemming from its current ban of transgender athletes competing in women's sports.

  4. September 24, 2025

    Swimmers, Divers Rip School, NIL Deal After Team Dropped

    Four former swimming and diving team members at California Polytechnic State University have filed objections in federal court to the NCAA's $2.78 billion name, image and likeness settlement, after university officials pointed to the financial consequences of the settlement as the reason the swimming and diving program was eliminated.

  5. July 25, 2025

    Sports & Betting Cases To Watch In The Second Half Of 2025

    Certain court cases have become staples on both the midyear and end-of-year must-watch lists in sports and betting at Law360. One that seemed best positioned to finally fall off the list, as it turns out, is far from over: the multibillion-dollar NCAA settlement regarding name, image and likeness payments and revenue sharing with hundreds of thousands of college athletes. A handful of other suits from past years will also continue to bear watching through the end of 2025.

  6. July 11, 2025

    NCAA's $2.8B NIL Deal Nets Athletes' Firms Over $455M In Fees

    A California federal judge Friday approved approximately $455 million in attorney fees for class counsel in the NCAA's $2.78 billion class action settlement that, for the first time, will provide for revenue sharing with college athletes, with additional fees set to roll in annually for 10 years.

  7. July 03, 2025

    3 More Athletes Appeal NCAA NIL Settlement To 9th Circ.

    Two former wrestlers, including an Olympic medalist, and a former walk-on football player have joined the list of college athletes announcing plans to appeal the $2.78 billion name, image and likeness settlement with the NCAA, arguing that they are receiving far too small a portion of the compensation package.

  8. July 02, 2025

    NCAA, NASCAR Antitrust Challenges Permeate 2025's 1st Half

    The first half of 2025 saw the dispute between NASCAR and two of its teams become supercharged and a judge give final approval to the disputed settlement for the NCAA name, image and likeness antitrust litigation.

  9. June 20, 2025

    Off The Bench: Lakers Sale, NASCAR Antitrust, NIL Appeals

    In this week's Off The Bench, the Lakers fetch a $10 billion valuation as a new owner takes control of the franchise, a federal judge urges litigants in the NASCAR antitrust brawl to settle, and appeals pile up against the NCAA's landmark $2.78 billion athlete compensation settlement.

  10. June 17, 2025

    Four More Women Appeal NIL Deal Over Title IX Objections

    Four additional former and current women college athletes, including one of the most decorated lacrosse players of all time, have filed notice of their intent to appeal the NCAA's $2.78 billion name, image and likeness compensation settlement to the Ninth Circuit, objecting to the deal's disproportionately low allocation of money to women.