College Basketball Lawsuits: Settlement, NIL, and Eligibility

College basketball lawsuits in 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the sport on several fronts at once: a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that lets schools pay athletes directly, a federal point-shaving indictment that reached dozens of Division I players, abuse suits against coaches at three programs, and eligibility fights that are still working through the courts. If you are trying to figure out who gets paid, when, and what the current legal risks look like for players and programs, the picture below is where things stand.

The House v. NCAA Settlement and Who Gets Paid

On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California gave final approval to the House v. NCAA settlement, ending years of antitrust litigation over the NCAA’s limits on athlete compensation.¹ The deal does two things. It pays about $2.576 billion in back damages over ten years to athletes who competed in Division I between June 2016 and September 2024, and it lets Division I schools share revenue with athletes directly for the first time.²

The back-pay fund splits into roughly $1.976 billion for broadcast and third-party NIL claims and $600 million for pay-for-play claims from athletes who were barred from direct compensation under the old rules.¹ Payouts are uneven by sport, reflecting what each sport generated:

Football and men’s basketball players: an average of roughly $91,000 in broadcast NIL damages (ranging from $15,000 to $280,000), about $40,000 in pay-for-play, and around $17,000 in lost third-party NIL opportunities.
Women’s basketball players: an average of roughly $23,000 in broadcast NIL damages, about $14,000 in pay-for-play, and around $8,500 in lost NIL opportunities.
Athletes in other sports: an average of approximately $5,300 in lost NIL opportunities, with a separate claim required for pay-for-play.²

The deadline to file a claim form was January 31, 2025. Athletes who filed can check their status at collegeathletecompensation.com.²

Starting July 1, 2025, participating schools can share up to 22% of their average athletic revenue with current athletes. That works out to roughly $20 million to $20.5 million per school in the first year, projected to grow to about $32.9 million by the 2034–35 academic year.¹ These payments sit on top of scholarships and are separate from any third-party NIL deals an athlete signs.

Enforcement runs through the College Sports Commission, an independent body set up by the Power Five conferences and led by CEO Bryan Seeley. The CSC uses a Deloitte-built portal called NIL Go to vet third-party deals worth $600 or more, checking for “fair market value” and a “valid business purpose” rather than disguised recruiting payments.³ As of May 2026, more than $125 million in promised NIL compensation was under review or had been rejected, with roughly 80% of that involving SEC and Big Ten programs.⁴

Why the Back-Pay Hasn’t Arrived: The Title IX Appeal

None of the back-pay money has reached athletes yet. Five days after Judge Wilken approved the settlement, eight female student-athletes filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, triggering an automatic stay on all damage distributions.⁵ They argue the settlement violates Title IX because roughly 90% of the fund goes to male football and basketball players, leaving some women athletes with as little as $125 per year played. The National Women’s Law Center filed an amicus brief in November 2025 supporting the appellants.⁶

Class counsel maintains that Title IX falls outside the scope of the case, which was litigated as an antitrust matter. Judge Wilken separately overruled post-approval Title IX objections in November 2025 and noted that class members can file independent Title IX lawsuits, since those claims were not released by the settlement.⁵ The forward-looking revenue-sharing provisions have not been affected by the stay and took effect as scheduled on July 1, 2025.

The New Antitrust Challenge to the Revenue-Sharing Cap

On June 9, 2026, USC linebacker Talanoa Ili and Stanford quarterback Charlie Mirer filed a new federal antitrust lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the NCAA, the Power Four conferences, and the College Sports Commission itself.⁷ The suit alleges that the NIL Go clearinghouse engages in illegal price-fixing and violates state statutes in 17 states, including California, New York, Ohio, and Michigan, that protect unlimited NIL compensation.⁴

The plaintiffs say they are not challenging the settlement itself, only its enforcement. Ili alleges that a “substantial multiyear offer” from USC’s booster collective, House of Victory, evaporated after approval.⁸ They want damages and an injunction halting CSC enforcement of restrictions on NIL contracts. Judge Wilken has retained jurisdiction over the case.⁷

Dismissed NIL Suits by Former Players

Former players trying to recover compensation outside the House settlement have had little success. Kris Jenkins, the former Villanova guard whose buzzer-beater won the 2016 national championship, opted out of the settlement and filed a 127-page lawsuit in the Southern District of New York in April 2025 against the NCAA and six major conferences. Jenkins argued his moment generated enormous value for both the NCAA and Villanova, including a $22.6 million donation to the university, while he received nothing beyond his scholarship.⁹

On December 15, 2025, Judge Denise Cote dismissed the case, ruling that Jenkins’ claims were “brought too late” because his membership in the earlier Alston v. NCAA class action precluded him from pursuing the same theories again.¹⁰ A parallel suit by 16 former college basketball players led by former Kansas standout Mario Chalmers was tossed in April 2025 by Judge Paul Engelmayer, who ruled the claims fell outside the four-year statute of limitations and that the NCAA’s continued use of old footage did not restart the clock.¹¹

The Federal Point-Shaving Indictment

On January 15, 2026, federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charged 26 people in what they called an international point-shaving and bribery conspiracy touching both NCAA Division I men’s basketball and the Chinese Basketball Association.¹² U.S. Attorney David Metcalf called the case a “significant corruption of the integrity of sports.”¹³

The scheme, according to the indictment, began in September 2022 in China, where fixers recruited Antonio Blakeney, a former college All-American playing for the CBA’s Jiangsu Dragons. It expanded to NCAA games during the 2023–24 and 2024–25 seasons. Prosecutors allege more than 39 players across more than 17 different Division I teams were involved, with more than 29 games fixed or targeted.¹² Schools identified as having compromised games include Nicholls State, Tulane, Saint Louis, LaSalle, Fordham, DePaul, Buffalo, and Southern Mississippi.¹⁴

The mechanics were simple. Fixers paid players between $10,000 and $30,000 per game to ensure their teams failed to cover the point spread, then placed large wagers on those outcomes.¹² The five non-player defendants were described as trainers, a former coach, a former NCAA player, and sports handicappers.¹³ Two alleged fixers, Marves Fairley and Shane Hennen, face separate federal charges in an NBA gambling case that reportedly involved Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier.¹⁵

Defendants in the NCAA case face bribery in sporting contests charges (up to five years per count) and conspiracy to commit wire fraud (up to 20 years per count).¹²

Coach-Abuse Lawsuits

Three basketball programs have been sued by former players over coach misconduct in the past year. Each complaint says players reported problems to university officials and were either ignored or pushed out.

Wisconsin Women’s Basketball

Five former Wisconsin women’s basketball players, Lexi Duckett, Krystyna Ellew, Mary Ferrito, Tara Stauffacher, and Tessa Towers, sued former head coach Marisa Moseley, the Wisconsin Board of Regents, and former associate athletic director Justin Doherty on August 15, 2025, in the Western District of Wisconsin.¹⁶ They allege Moseley used her position to “unconstitutionally toy with the mental health of her players” as a means of control.¹⁷

The complaint says Moseley pressured players to disclose private information in one-on-one meetings, threatened to revoke playing time or scholarships if they sought mental health treatment, and interfered with their medical care. Tessa Towers, the suit alleges, was placed on 11 new medications in less than a year after an ADHD diagnosis and forced to choose between mental hospitalization and being removed from the team. Moseley resigned in March 2025. The university said in August that officials had not yet reviewed the suit.¹⁶

Pittsburgh Women’s Basketball

In February 2026, six former Pitt women’s basketball players, Favor Ayodele, Raeven Boswell, MaKayla Elmore, Brooklynn Miles, Isabella Perkins, and Jasmine Timmerson, sued the university and head coach Tory Verdi in the Western District of Pennsylvania.¹⁸¹⁹

The players say they reported concerns to compliance officers and staff and faced reduced playing time and dismissal from the team. They seek compensatory damages, restoration of their academic records, and a legal finding that the university violated Title IX.²⁰ The university said the allegations are “without merit and will be vigorously defended.”¹⁹

IU Indianapolis Men’s Basketball

Six former IU Indianapolis men’s basketball players, Briggs McClain, Nathan Dudukovich, Ronald Rutland III, Ebenezer Ogoh, Caleb Hannah, and Julian Steinfeld, sued the university and its board of trustees in Marion County Superior Court on December 15, 2025. They allege former head coach Paul Corsaro subjected them to physical and psychological abuse during the 2024–25 season.²¹²² Players reported contemplating suicide, and one called a crisis hotline twice.

Corsaro was fired in May 2025 after an internal investigation. He denies the allegations and in October 2025 filed a tort claim against the university for wrongful termination and defamation, arguing the investigation substantiated only two claims, that he used profanity and once bumped a player during a drill.²³ As of mid-2026 the case remains pending with limited activity beyond initial subpoenas.²¹

Eligibility Suits Against the NCAA

Two eligibility cases in the past year show how courts are drawing the line between antitrust exposure and NCAA rulemaking authority. In January 2026, former Alabama center Charles Bediako sued the NCAA to restore his college eligibility after it denied his request to return from professional basketball. Bediako had left Alabama in 2023 for the NBA draft, went undrafted, signed a two-way professional contract, and spent three seasons in the G League before seeking to rejoin the Crimson Tide.²⁴ A temporary restraining order let him play briefly starting January 24, but on February 9, 2026, Circuit Judge Daniel Pruet denied a preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO, finding Bediako failed to show irreparable harm and that the NCAA had “acted with adequate justification.”²⁵ Both NCAA president Charlie Baker and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey had publicly opposed Bediako’s reinstatement.²⁶

In Robinson v. NCAA, West Virginia defensive lineman Jimmori Robinson and three teammates challenged the NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule,” which counts junior college time toward an athlete’s eligibility clock. A district court granted a preliminary injunction in August 2025 allowing the players to compete in the 2025 season, but on April 3, 2026, the Fourth Circuit vacated it. Judge Henry Floyd wrote that the players had not established a “coherent theory” of the relevant market needed for an antitrust claim. The court did reject the NCAA’s argument that eligibility rules are entirely exempt from antitrust scrutiny, writing that the restraint “interferes with student-athletes’ free exercise of their rights to engage in commerce.”²⁷ The case is not moot: at least one plaintiff has sought a waiver for the 2026–27 season.²⁸

The Federal Bill That Could Change the Rules Again

On May 27, 2026, Senators Maria Cantwell, Ted Cruz, Chris Coons, and Eric Schmitt introduced the Protect College Sports Act. The bipartisan bill would replace the current patchwork of state NIL laws with a national standard, provide a limited antitrust exemption for the NCAA and the College Sports Commission, and codify the House settlement’s revenue-sharing framework.²⁹

The bill includes 10-year scholarship guarantees, five years of post-eligibility medical coverage, and a $60 million annual trust fund for long-term health conditions. It would limit athletes to one transfer before a mandatory eligibility pause, prohibit conferences that generated over $1 billion in fiscal year 2025 revenue from merging, and require that at least one-third of governing board members be current or recent former student-athletes.²⁹ The NFLPA and NBPA have endorsed the measure. The SEC and Big Ten have withheld support, and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey has questioned the process of endorsing legislation before a final draft was reviewed.³⁰ The Congressional Black Caucus has raised concerns about limits on athlete compensation and movement rights.⁴

1
ESPN. Judge Grants Final Approval House v. NCAA Settlement
2
Athletes.org. House v. NCAA
3
U.S. House of Representatives. Trahan Letter to CSC on Denied NIL Deals
4
Yahoo Sports. Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against NCAA Power Conferences and College Sports Commission Over House Settlement
5
Westlaw. Title IX Appeals in House v. NCAA Settlement
6
NWLC. NWLC Files Amicus Brief Support Women Appealing Settlement Agreement
7
USA Today. NCAA Antitrust Lawsuit House Settlement Revenue Sharing Cap
8
Sportico. California NIL Cap House Settlement Lawsuit NCAA
9
ESPN. Kris Jenkins Sues NCAA Limiting Pay Villanova
10
Sports Business Journal. Judge Dismisses Kris Jenkins NIL Lawsuit Against NCAA Conferences
11
ESPN. Judge Tosses Lawsuit Ex Basketball Players NIL
12
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 26 People Charged Alleged Bribery and Point Shaving Scheme Fix NCAA CBA Mens
13
6abc. 17 College Basketball Players Charged Point Shaving Scheme Indictment
14
NBC News. 20 Charged Basketball Game Fixing Scandal
15
Front Office Sports. NCAA Chinese Basketball Gambling Scheme Federal Indictment
16
WMTV. Ex Wisconsin Players Say Lawsuit That Former Coach Marisa Moseley Psychologically Abused Them
17
CBS Sports. Five Ex Wisconsin Womens Basketball Players Sue Former Coach Marisa Moseley Alleging Mental Abuse
18
NBC News. Former University Pittsburgh Womens Basketball Players Allege Emotional Abuse
19
ESPN. Former Pitt Players Sue Allege Abusive Coaching Methods
20
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. NCAA Pitt Tory Verdi Lawsuit Title IX Favor Ayodele Raeven Boswell
21
Fox 59. 6 Former IU Indianapolis Mens Basketball Players Sue University Over Alleged Abuse
22
The Indiana Lawyer. Former IU Indy Mens Basketball Players Sue Trustees Campus Claim Alleged Abuse by Former Head Coach
23
Fox 59. Coach Paul Corsaro Claims IU Indianapolis Defamed Him in Statement About His Firing
24
ABC 33/40. Judge Denies Alabama Player Charles Bediakos Bid to Keep Playing During NCAA Suit
25
AL.com. Judge Decides on Ex Pro Charles Bediakos Eligibility to Play for Alabama Basketball
26
ESPN. Alabama Bediako Expected Play Sat Judge Mulls Ruling
27
Sportico. Robinson NCAA Fourth Circuit Ruling
28
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Robinson v. NCAA, No. 25-2003
29
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce. Cantwell Cruz Schmitt Coons Release Bipartisan Bill to Stabilize College Sports Protect Athletes and Expand Revenue Sharing
30
ESPN. SEC Big Ten Withhold Support Landmark College Sports Bill