The House v. NCAA case, which took effect on July 1, has changed how college athletes can be paid. It wrapped up three anti-trust lawsuits that claimed the NCAA unfairly blocked players from making money off their name, image and likeness (NIL). Two big changes came out of this:
1. Schools can now pay athletes directly
Before, players had to be paid through “collectives” (a legal entity that pools money outside the school). Now, schools themselves can pay athletes, but only up to a certain limit or “cap.” That cap is set “by taking 22% of certain power school revenues, most notably ticket sales, television dollars and sponsorship.” For big schools, that’s expected to be about $20–25 million per year. But schools don’t have to spend that much.
The catch? Schools with massive football programs will have the revenue to pay athletes across all sports. Schools without that kind of money, like most college hockey programs, won’t be able to compete financially.
2. Collectives are still allowed, but more restricted
Players can still make money through collectives, but those deals now have to pass a higher standard. They can’t just be “pay-for-play.” Instead, they need to show a real business purpose (like endorsements, appearances or advertising work). A new body called the College Sports Commission will oversee this, handling NIL rules, revenue sharing and roster limits.
Why this matters for college hockey
Our blog takes a deeper look at this, but Big Ten schools known for powerhouse football and basketball programs will have the funds to pay athletes right up to the cap. Most other hockey schools don’t have those revenue streams, meaning Big Ten teams may dominate the talent pool in the future.
The legal battles aren’t over, and questions remain about whether athletes should be treated as employees or how long they can remain in college, but for now, the rules around NIL and school payments appear to have something of a stable framework … for now.
