Or can it still get worse from here?
Last week, Tennessee quarterback Nico Iamaleava held perhaps the first professional-style holdout in college sports. Tennessee responded by removing Iamaleava from its roster. Just like the holdouts in pro sports, this one was over money. How did we get to this point and will the expected House Settlement prevent things like this from happening again? Or make it worse?
Full disclosure: this writer is in favor of college athletes who contribute to revenue generation for their school being allowed to share in that revenue. College athletes should also be allowed to profit from their name, image, and likeness along the lines of former Texas quarterback Quinn Ewers with Dr. Pepper and basketball stars Caitlin Clark and JuJu Watkins with State Farm Insurance. But there has to be a line between that and boosters forming collectives in an effort to buy players for their favorite team.
How did we get to this point? Part 1 – NIL
College athletes have been permitted to make money off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) since July 1, 2021. Prior to that, earnings were restricted to: scholarships and financial aid, education-related benefits, per diem and travel expenses, limited gifts and benefits (i.e. gift bags at bowl games with value limits), and insurance and health benefits. NIL earnings, direct pay from schools or boosters, agent representation, and job benefits based on athletic status were not allowed. Athletes were allowed to have jobs but had to be paid at fair market value.
The NIL policy change was in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the NCAA v. Alston case where the Court ruled that the NCAA’s restrictions on education-related benefits violated antitrust laws. However, the NCAA stated that athletes could only profit on their NIL after enrolling in school and that any NIL compensation must not be dependent on an athlete choosing any particular school.
That’s not what happened though.
As soon as the NCAA reversed its position on NIL, collectives, or booster-backed organizations, started forming in an attempt to lure athletes to their preferred program and many athletes were negotiating NIL deals with a collective before enrolling in college.
As an aside, collectives that support, or have supported, athletics at Michigan State include This is Sparta! , Spartan Nation NIL , East Lansing NIL Club , and Spartan Dawgs For Life (SD4L). In particular, SD4L had a rough ride and its current involvement with MSU Athletics is unclear. SD4L was founded by MSU booster Steve St. Andre but it abruptly paused NIL contracts with many Spartan football players in September 2023. This followed the suspension and eventual firing of former coach Mel Tucker and, according to Bloomberg , nearly led to a walkout by several MSU players prior to the September 30, 2023 game at Iowa.
While 32 states have enacted NIL laws governing how college athletes can financially benefit from their personal brand, no federal law currently exists. In the absence of uniform federal legislation, the NCAA has found itself pitted against this patchwork of state laws. Five states and the District of Columbia have taken legal action against the NCAA over its NIL policies.
Ironically, it was the state of Tennessee that helped lead this charge. In January 2024 Tennessee and Virginia filed a lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s restrictions on NIL being used in the recruiting process. Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia later joined the suit which argued that the NCAA’s NIL restrictions violated antitrust laws by unfairly limiting athletes’ abilities to profit from the NIL rights. The NCAA settled with Tennessee and the other states involved in January 2025 and agreed to eliminate its rule that prevented athletes from negotiating NIL deals prior to enrollment.
Tennessee’s lawsuit was in response to the NCAA’s investigation of NIL-related recruiting violations within the University of Tennessee’s football program involving – guess who – Nico Iamaleava. So, sort of a full circle moment here.
All of this over a quarterback who went 14-31 for 104 yards and zero touchdowns in a 42-17 first round playoff loss to Ohio State to end the Volunteers’ 2024 season.
How did we get to this point? Part 2 – the House Settlement
The House Settlement is a proposed legal agreement between the NCAA and a number of plaintiffs, including former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, who the settlement is named after. The suit was filed in 2020 and alleges that the NCAA and its major conferences unfairly restrict athletes’ ability to earn compensation based on NIL, broadcast revenue, and other commercial uses.
Judge Claudia Wilken is presiding over the case and is eventually expected to grant approval after raising some final concerns on April 7, 2025. When approved, the settlement will go into effect on July 1, 2025. A key component involves revenue sharing with athletes going forward. Schools will be able to opt into revenue sharing, allocating up to 22% of their annual athletic revenue to their athletes.
Michigan State is preparing for revenue sharing and, for a school like MSU, this could mean approximately $20.5 million being shared with athletes, with the majority of that – approximately $14.8 million – going to football players. Men’s basketball may expect to receive roughly $3.2 million while remaining funds would be divided among women’s basketball, hockey, and other sports.
In addition to revenue sharing, the House Settlement will also allow for back pay to former college athletes and will allow current and future athletes to continue signing third-party NIL deals, but with certain caveats.
The settlement aims to establish a national NIL clearinghouse operated by an independent third party – not the NCAA. The clearinghouse will be tasked with certain enforcement measures including mandatory reporting of NIL deals and fair market evaluation (FMV) of such deals. Athletes must report all NIL deals valued at $600 or more to the clearinghouse. Additionally, FMV evaluation states that NIL deals involving boosters or collectives must be evaluated to ensure they are for a legitimate business purpose.
Will any of this actually work?
Revenue sharing is going to happen, assuming final approval of the House Settlement. The Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, ACC and Pac 12 were named as defendants in the lawsuit and their member schools are required to opt in to rev share. Additionally, the Horizon League schools have indicated their intention to participate in rev share. The Ivy League schools will not join the settlement and therefore will not participate in rev share.
NIL enforcement, on the other hand, seems to be far less clear. A new enforcement structure , independent of the NCAA, is to be established as part of the House Settlement but any penalties for schools or athletes not adhering to the NIL regulations may not be exhaustively detailed at this point, other than schools being subject to investigation, adjudication, and/or arbitration.
Color me skeptical.
Schools, and their wealthy boosters, turned the opportunity for athletes to make money off their name, image, and likeness into channeling money directly to players and using it as a recruiting incentive – in direct defiance of the NCAA’s initial ruling on NIL. When the NCAA tried to do something about it, Tennessee and some other states sued them and the NCAA backed off.
Will this really be any different under an independent third-party enforcement? Or will it just be more of the same, where the third party gets taken to court instead of, or alongside, the NCAA? Will schools actually agree to strict and meaningful NIL regulations and abide by them? Or will the temptation to live on the edge of the rules, or outright ignore them, to gain a competitive advantage remain. In the absence of severe penalties, here’s betting it will.
It seems simple enough: if you want to compete in an athletic organization, then you agree to abide by the rules of the organization or face repercussions. Not take them to court when faced with punishment amidst evidence of breaking the rules. Or, if you don’t like the rules, then leave. And maybe that’s where all of this is eventually headed – with some or all members of the “Power 4” or 5, or whatever it is now, conference schools breaking off to do their own thing.
But let’s wrap this up back where we started – with Nico Iamaleava. The Tennessee football program showed a spine and let Iamaleava go. Iamaleava is now in the transfer portal while Tennessee is probably mining the same portal for his replacement. Will any school now take a chance on Iamaleava given his history with Tennessee? If they see him as an upgrade to their current situation, the answer is probably yes. If faced with a similar situation, will other schools respond as Tennessee did? Or are they now renegotiating with their starting QBs so they are not, as Tennessee now is, faced with the task of replacing him just over four months away from the start of the season?
Personally, I used to love college sports for the drama that played out on the field, court, or racecourse. This was rooted in the belief that, although revenue-generating athletes should be able to share in this, they actually cared about the school they represented and wanted to be there.
The whole situation with Iamaleava and, much closer to home, Tre Holloman, of all people, defending the logo, kissing the logo, and then bolting for NC State makes me wonder if anyone still cares about the school they play for. As Ice Cream Index author donaldo stated, “I wish him the best as he transitions from one of the most upstanding coaches over the last 30 years to another in a long line of sleazeballs.” I’m assuming he’s referring to newly-hired NC State coach Will Wade, who has a bit of a checkered past with the NCAA.
Now, I just view myself as someone with an opportunity to comment on all of these things happening outside the actual arena of competition and finding it harder and harder to maintain an interest in, much less a love for, college athletics.