There was no immediate reaction from Gonzaga following court approval of the landmark House vs. NCAA lawsuit settlement on Friday evening.
The Zags stand to become one of the biggest winners in the post-House world, where schools can share revenue with athletes starting July 1.
The revenue-sharing component features a cap of $20.5 million in the 2025-26 competition year, with annual increases expected.
Gonzaga could plow as much as it wants into men’s basketball ($5 million, $7 million, whatever) as long as it doesn’t exceed the cap and makes the requisite commitment to Olympic sports.
The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12 — the five named defendants in the House lawsuit — have created an independent entity to track revenue sharing and enforce NIL payments.
Gonzaga did not respond right away to the court’s approval of the historic House vs. Friday evening saw the settlement of an NCAA lawsuit.
Bulldogs website with no statement. There are no posts on social media from basketball coach Mark Few or athletic director Chris Standiford. There’s radio silence in Spokane, where it seems like winners don’t celebrate.
Yes, people. With schools able to split profits with athletes as early as July 1, the Zags have a chance to emerge as one of the biggest winners in the post-House world.
They are not alone, either. Any school could gain a significant edge in the talent-acquisition process if it prioritizes basketball over football and doesn’t play or care about the sport.
We’ll explain.
In the competition year of 2025–2026, the revenue-sharing component has a cap of $20–5 million, with yearly increases anticipated. Although it is not required, the power conference schools will surely go all out to prevent blowback in recruiting.
The overall breakdown in the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, and SEC is that approximately $15 million will go toward football rosters, approximately $3 million will go toward men’s basketball, and the remaining portion will go toward Olympic sports. However, each athletic department will decide how to divide the funds.
Rich basketball traditions allow schools like Duke, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, and UCLA to share $4–$5 million with their basketball players, which puts them ahead of their intra-conference counterparts who place more emphasis on football.
However, schools that don’t play football don’t have to provide for the beast. As long as Gonzaga stays within the cap and makes the necessary commitment to Olympic sports, it is free to invest as much as it wants in men’s basketball—$5 million, $7 million, whatever.
For the Big East, it is the same. They can designate any money they raise for basketball. Although they play football, Connecticut will probably give basketball top priority. ).
Furthermore, the Zags have the option to augment their revenue sharing by utilizing outside resources.
There is no prohibition of NIL in the House settlement. Rather, it seeks to end booster collective-funded pay-for-play and establish a legal system for paying athletes for real business opportunities.
In order to monitor revenue sharing and enforce NIL payments, the five named defendants in the House lawsuit—the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Pac-12—have established an independent organization. The College Sports Commission will be headed by Bryan Seeley, an assistant U.S. commissioner and former Major League Baseball chief investigator. S. . legal representative.
To guarantee authenticity, athletes must report their contracts. Athletes may seek arbitration or modify the terms and resubmit if the deal is rejected. The CSC may impose sanctions on schools that permit athletes to compete using rejected contracts.
In other words, athletes should have access to as many legitimate business opportunities as possible.
According to theory, schools in basketball-loving communities will have more opportunities to pay players real NIL than schools in football-loving communities.
With Spokane’s business opportunities and the athletic department’s ability to pay its basketball team more than other schools that play football, the Zags are incredibly well-positioned for the future.
Avoiding paying the football beast is profitable in the post-House world.
There are more winners and losers from the lawsuit settlement.
The fans are the losers. Anything that raises athletic departments’ costs puts more of a strain on supporters. There will be a greater need than ever for direct donations, and local business community members will face pressure to offer NIL opportunities.
The winner is Ed O’Bannon. When he sued the NCAA and EA Sports for using his image and likeness in a video game, the former UCLA basketball star began this ten-year economic revolution. Revenue sharing followed NIL, which was the result of his successful lawsuit.
Bloat in administration is the loser. Due to financial strains brought on by $20–5 million in player compensation, schools will have to reallocate all of their funds. This might result in staff reductions and the abolition of mid-level managerial roles, which are common in major collegiate athletics. In order to replace the water cooler, fewer deputy senior assistant athletic directors will be present.
The Power Four bifurcation won. The full effects of revenue sharing may not become clear for years, but one thing is clear right away: Schools with the biggest budgets and the strongest will have an advantage. Furthermore, those elements are not dispersed equally among the power conferences. It may become evident by the end of the decade which schools are eager to establish a super league and which ones are happy to scale back their football programs.
College Sports Commission lost. The NIL enforcement organization has good intentions: schools in the power conferences are committed to getting rid of phony NIL (i.e. E. pay-for-play) and putting in place true NIL (payments for lawful business activities). NIL Go, a technological platform designed to assess fair compensation for all NIL deals worth $600 or more, is unlikely to survive legal challenges, according to the Hotline. Fair market value can only be established by the market.
Billable hours were the winner. The plaintiffs’ principal lawyers, Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, are anticipated to split $475 million in legal fees. Additionally, they sought an extra $250 million for the settlement’s damages component over a ten-year payout period, according to the Associated Press. Kessler and Berman may still file a lawsuit against the NCAA, but they won’t have to.
Olympic sports are the loser. Schools will, at the very least, establish tiers for their Olympic sports, with some being given greater funding for staff salaries and revenue sharing than others. For instance, the SEC will ensure that softball has adequate funding, while the Big Ten will probably give volleyball priority. In the worst case scenario, low-priority programs will either be discontinued completely or transformed into club sports.
Claudia Wilken was the winner. The 75-year-old U. S. . The person who permanently altered college athletics will be remembered as the Northern California District Court Judge. Stanford and Cal, two universities whose academic and athletic missions have historically stood in sharp contrast to the revolution Wilken orchestrated, are the schools where Wilken, who ruled in favor of Ed O’Bannon ten years ago, holds degrees.
NCAA loser vs. Board of Regents in Oklahoma. By giving individual conferences (rather than the NCAA) control over their media rights, the 1984 case, which made it all the way to the Supreme Court, ushered in the realignment era. It was the most important event in college sports history for forty years.
It’s got company as of Friday night.
*** Call 408-920-5716 or send emails with ideas, remarks, and advice (confidentiality assured) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com.
*** You can follow me on social media at @WilnerHotline.
