Federal College Sports Law Updates
FEDERAL LAW, AT-A-GLANCE:
Congress has not passed comprehensive federal NIL legislation.
The House settlement authorized Rev-share; schools have ~$20.5M to distribute.
No federal law caps agent fees or mandates agent registration for NIL and rev-share representation. The SAFE Act would change this if passed.
College athletes remain classified as students, not employees.
Title IX compliance in the rev-share era is an unresolved and actively litigated issue
Federal Legislation Tracker
Last Updated: April 20, 2026
PENDING LEGISLATION:
SAFE Act — Pending, In the Senate Commerce Committee.
Sponsors: Senators Cantwell, Booker, and Blumenthal
What it does: Would codify NIL rights nationally, require agent registration across all states, and cap agent fees at 5%. The most athlete-protective federal bill currently active.
What to watch: Agent industry opposition is significant. A fee cap at 5% would fundamentally reshape how agents price NIL and rev-share representation.
SCORE Act — Stalled.
What it would have done: Granted the NCAA and College Sports Commission formal authority to enforce national NIL and rev-share rules.
Status: Pulled. Bipartisan opposition.
Federal Court Case Tracker
House v. NCAA (In re College Athlete NIL Litigation) (Nos. 20-cv-03919, 20-cv-04527, N.D. Cal., Judge Wilken, filed June 15, 2020
The House settlement is the landmark antitrust agreement that fundamentally restructured how college athletes are compensated. Reached between current and former college athletes and the NCAA and its member conferences, the settlement does two things:
-
It provides $2.576 billion in damages — paid out over ten years — to current and former college athletes who were denied compensation under the NCAA's previous rules, and;
-
It establishes a prospective revenue-sharing framework that allows schools to pay athletes directly, beginning with a cap of $20.5 million per school for the 2025-26 academic year, with that figure set to increase over time.
Judge Wilken granted final approval of the settlement on June 6, 2025. The settlement is binding on all class members who did not opt out, and it governs how schools may structure direct athlete compensation going forward.
Several appeals have been filed with the Ninth Circuit, primarily raising Title IX concerns about how revenue-sharing funds are distributed between men's and women's sports programs. Those appeals are currently pending.
House Appeals Updates:
Several appeals have been filed to challenge the House settlement.
Following final approval of the House settlement on June 6, 2025, ten appeals have been filed with the Ninth Circuit and subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding.
The majority of appeals challenge the settlement on Title IX grounds, arguing that the damage distribution — which heavily favors football and men's basketball athletes — violates federal gender equity law. Additional appeals target the settlement's class definitions and their effect on back pay eligibility for certain athletes.
A second wave of appeals followed the district court's ruling on objections raised during the 2025-26 incoming class hearing. Those appeals raise further Title IX concerns, as well as challenges related to the settlement's impact on roster limit decisions and the elimination of athletic programs at specific schools.
Key Upcoming Dates (District Court settlement administration)
-
June 29, 2026: Deadline to Submit Proposed Notice for 2026-27 Incoming Class
Key Upcoming Dates (Final Approval Appeals - Nos. 25-3722, 25-3835, 25-4137, 25-4150, 25-4190, and 25-4218)
-
February 18, 2026: Reply Briefs Due
Key Upcoming Dates (2025-26 Incoming Class Appeals - Nos. 25-7461, 25-7467, 25-7469, 25-7824, and 25-7869)
-
March 9, 2026: Opening Briefs Due
-
April 8, 2026: Response Briefs Due
-
April 29, 2026: Reply Briefs Due
.png)
.png)
Johnson v. NCAA (No. 19-cv-5230, E.D. Pa., 3rd Cir. Court of Appeals)
Johnson v. NCAA is a federal employment law case asking whether college athletes qualify as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing minimum wage and overtime pay. Filed in 2019, the lawsuit argues that athletic participation at the Division I level constitutes work performed for the benefit of the university, creating an employment relationship that entitles athletes to wages. The case is a class action with multiple plaintiff classes: a nationwide FLSA collective action covering all Division I athletes across all sports, and separate state law classes covering athletes who competed at schools in Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, North Carolina, Oregon, Louisiana, Arizona, and Indiana. In July 2024, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that college athletes are not categorically barred from bringing FLSA claims, rejecting the NCAA's argument that amateur status alone disqualifies athletes from employee protections. The court established a four-part test: college athletes may be considered employees when they (a) perform services for another party, (b) necessarily and primarily for that party's benefit, (c) under that party's control or right of control, and (d) in return for express or implied compensation or in-kind benefits. The case returned to the district court, where the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint applying the new test. The NCAA and multiple defendant schools have filed motions to dismiss, raising arguments ranging from the merits of the Third Circuit test to personal jurisdiction and sovereign immunity. The case is currently awaiting a hearing on those motions. If athletes are ultimately found to be employees, the implications extend well beyond minimum wage, touching workers' compensation, collective bargaining rights, tax treatment of scholarships, and the overall structure of how schools relate to their athletes. Congress has the authority to resolve the question legislatively by amending the FLSA's definition of "employee" to explicitly include or exclude college athletes, and that remains an open consideration. The court has yet to set a date for the parties to argue the motions to dismiss.
Fontenot v. NCAA (No. 23-cv-03076, D. Colo., Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney, filed November 20, 2023)
Fontenot v. NCAA is technically an antitrust challenge against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences — the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Pac-12 — arguing that NCAA prohibitions on "pay-for-play" violate federal antitrust law. But it's in the employment section because this case is essentially about players getting a salary to play a sport. The lawsuit contends that athletes should have the right to negotiate direct, performance-based compensation from their schools, without artificial caps or restraints imposed by the NCAA. Essentially, they feel the cap placed on a school's ability to pay an athlete by the House settlement is a violation. Originally focused on football and men's and women's basketball players at Power Five schools, the case was later expanded to cover athletes across all sports at the Division I level. The injunctive relief claims, which would seek to structurally change how athlete compensation is governed going forward, remain stayed unless House's final approval is reversed on appeal (unlikely). The case now includes approximately 300 named plaintiffs and has absorbed a related opt-out case. With the stay lifted, the defendants have filed answers to the complaint, and the case is proceeding through discovery toward trial. A pretrial conference isn't scheduled until April 2027.
.png)
Trinidad Chambliss is a quarterback at the University of Mississippi who filed for a preliminary injunction in January 2026 to restore his eligibility for the 2026–2027 college football season. The case centers on the NCAA's refusal to grant him a fifth-year eligibility waiver despite a well-documented medical history that prevented him from competing in two of his first four years of enrollment. Chambliss first enrolled at Ferris State University in the fall of 2021. From 2021 through the fall of 2022, a series of serious medical conditions — including recurring mononucleosis, COVID-19, chronic tonsillitis, adenoiditis, and adenotonsillar hypertrophy — left him unable to compete in games against outside competition. He participated only in practices during those years. His first actual season of intercollegiate competition wasn't until 2023–2024. By the time he transferred to Ole Miss and played the 2025 fall season, that was only his third season of competition. He is seeking a fourth. Ole Miss submitted a waiver request to the NCAA in October 2025, supported by 91 pages of medical records, a written opinion from his treating ENT physician, and letters from Ferris State's head coach and former sports medicine staff. The NCAA denied the request, citing an alleged lack of contemporaneous medical documentation — a claim the petition directly disputes, pointing to records from examinations immediately before and after the fall 2022 season. The legal argument rests on three main grounds. First, that Chambliss is a third-party beneficiary of the contracts between the NCAA and its member institutions, giving him standing to challenge the denial. Second, that the NCAA owes him a duty of good faith and fair dealing under that contractual relationship. Third, that the NCAA breached that duty — not just in how it handled his specific case, but structurally. The petition includes an NCAA internal directive from 2024 instructing staff to deny all requests for additional seasons of competition, regardless of the evidence submitted. The petition argues this predetermined outcome rendered the entire waiver process a sham. Chambliss transferred to Ole Miss after receiving assurances from compliance personnel at Ferris State and Ole Miss football operations staff that 2025–2026 would be considered only his third year of active competition and that a fourth season would be available to him. He went on to start at quarterback for Ole Miss, led the team to the College Football Playoff semifinals, and received the Connerly Trophy and SEC Newcomer of the Year honors. The court held a hearing on these motions on February 12, and granted the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The court ruled that the NCAA breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing to Chambliss, who the court found to be a third-party beneficiary of the contracts between the NCAA and Ole Miss, by mishandling his waiver request. The NCAA appealed this decision to the Mississippi Supreme Court, but that court has denied jurisdiction. Latest Event: The Mississippi Supreme Court denied the NCAA's petition for permission to appeal the decision granting Chambliss a preliminary injunction (3/27/2026). The case will move through the typical pre-trial motions and discovery process over the next several months.
Chambliss v. NCAA (No. 26-cv-00017-W, Chancery Court of Lafayette County (Mississippi State Court), filed January 16, 2026)
Workshops & Athlete Education
California's NIL and rev-share landscape is only useful to athletes if they understand it. Knowing the law is one thing but making sure your athletes know what to do before they sign a contract, hire a representative, or disclose a deal is another.
Hopkins Law offers live, in-person workshops delivered directly on your campus, covering three areas that directly affect your program's compliance exposure:
-
Before You Sign — NIL and rev-share contract basics, including payment terms, exclusivity, usage rights, and buyout language.
-
Agents & the Unregulated Marketplace — how to evaluate agents, advisors, and third parties, including red flags in fee structures, conflicts of interest, and exclusivity clauses.
-
Staying Eligible — documentation and disclosure habits, compliance obligations under the House settlement, and NIL inducement issues that create avoidable violations.
Each workshop runs 60 to 90 minutes, is customizable to your sport or compliance situation, and includes a Q&A. A regional discount applies to schools in California, Oregon, and Nevada.
Request dates or get more information by clicking the "Workshop" button below, or email chop@hlosportslaw.com for an immediate response.