Late Friday, Judge Claudia Wilken officially granted final approval to the landmark House v. NCAA settlement—clearing the way for a monumental shift in how college athletes are compensated, and how major college sports will be governed going forward.
In a carefully reasoned opinion, Wilken approved the settlement despite previously raising serious concerns about one of its more controversial components: the impact of new roster limits on current athletes.
The bottom line? The NCAA—and especially the Power 4 conferences—are getting exactly what they’ve been maneuvering toward for years: more control over how college sports operate, less central oversight from the NCAA itself, and a legal framework that helps them contain further antitrust liability (for now).
But the process leading up to this moment, and the way the roster issue was ultimately handled, should leave anyone watching this space with some lingering questions—and some real concerns about where college sports governance is headed.
Roster Limits: From Dealbreaker to “Good Enough”
In April, Judge Wilken had openly questioned whether she could approve the House settlement unless it protected current athletes from losing roster spots under new team size limits.
That concern was well-founded: by that point, many schools had already begun cutting athletes preemptively to prepare for the settlement’s financial realities. Athletes had testified about losing roster spots, scholarships, even access to training and medical care—all because of a deal that technically hadn’t yet been finalized.
In response, the NCAA and Power 4 conferences hastily constructed a “fix”: creating a category of “Designated Student-Athletes” who would be exempt from new roster limits if they had already been promised a spot.
However—crucially—schools would not be required to reinstate cut athletes, or reverse transfer decisions already made under the shadow of the settlement. The choice to take players back would be purely optional.
Judge Wilken acknowledged in her opinion that this wasn’t a perfect solution—and that “irreparable harm” had already occurred for some athletes. Still, she concluded that the compromise was sufficient to allow the broader deal to move forward.
In other words: while the roster issue may have looked like a dealbreaker a month ago, the combination of institutional momentum and legal pragmatism ultimately tipped the scales toward approval.
How Much Did Preemptive Changes Influence the Court?
Reading between the lines, it’s hard not to wonder how much the irreversible changes already underway influenced Judge Wilken’s decision.
The opinion openly notes that schools had already restructured rosters, budgets, and future plans in anticipation of this deal. To fully reject the settlement at this point might have plunged DI sports into even deeper chaos—creating more harm than the imperfect fixes on offer.
In effect, preemptive institutional action shaped the outcome. By moving fast and decisively ahead of the court’s final ruling, schools arguably constrained what remedies were still realistically on the table.
That’s a dynamic worth watching as future disputes emerge around this deal—and future governance battles play out.
What Is the NCAA Now?
One of the most striking elements of Wilken’s approval is how clearly it confirms the ongoing power shift away from the NCAA itself.
Under the settlement:
Enforcement of compensation rules (including salary caps and NIL deal oversight) will now rest with the new College Sports Commission, run by the Power 4—not the NCAA.
The NCAA will still oversee things like academic eligibility and national championships, but it is effectively surrendering its historic role as enforcer of amateurism.
And the Power 4 will manage its own NIL clearinghouse, armed with software and enforcement processes developed by Deloitte.
Put simply: the NCAA will still exist, but much of its authority over the most high-profile, lucrative parts of college sports is now being handed to the conferences themselves.
And this raises an unavoidable question: if the NCAA is no longer responsible for overseeing the core rules of athlete compensation and eligibility at the DI level—what exactly is its purpose now?
Are We Letting the Power 4 Take Over?
This moment does not exist in a vacuum.
At the very same time Judge Wilken was finalizing this decision, another working group inside the NCAA was advancing proposals to change Division I governance—giving the Power 4 even more voting power, and stripping away autonomy for FCS and DI-AAA schools.
Viewed together, these trends paint a clear picture: major college sports is becoming a Power 4 enterprise, with everyone else increasingly left to fend for themselves.
And as always, it’s the athletes at smaller schools, Olympic sports participants, and the broader campus communities who stand to lose the most as the system becomes more stratified.
Final Takeaway: A Historic Approval, But At What Cost?
There’s no doubt this is a watershed moment. The House settlement will unlock billions of dollars for athletes, finally moving college sports toward a more equitable and modern system of compensation.
But the process leading here was messy—and the hasty, imperfect handling of the roster issue is a warning sign of the pitfalls still to come.
Moreover, this approval accelerates a broader trend: the gradual takeover of major college sports governance by the Power 4, often at the expense of everyone else in the ecosystem.
As we move forward, we must ask: Are we about to lose the very diversity and opportunity that has long made college sports special? And is anyone left with enough power to stop that from happening?
