Sports lawsuits in 2025 reshaped how college athletes get paid, stripped the NFL commissioner of unilateral authority to arbitrate disputes against the league, produced federal criminal charges against two active Major League Baseball pitchers, and opened a widening court split over whether prediction markets are regulated commodities or illegal gambling. The year’s single biggest development was the final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, which committed the NCAA and Power Five conferences to roughly $2.8 billion in back damages and launched direct revenue-sharing payments from schools to athletes.
The House v. NCAA Settlement
On June 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval to the settlement in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, which consolidated House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, and Carter v. NCAA.1ESPN. Judge Grants Final Approval House v NCAA Settlement The deal requires the NCAA and Power Five conferences to pay approximately $2.8 billion in back damages over ten years to athletes who competed from 2016 onward without receiving name, image, and likeness compensation.2Ropes Gray. House v NCAA Settlement Approved Era of Direct Payments to College Athletes Begins
Starting July 1, 2025, schools that opted into the settlement could begin making direct revenue-sharing payments to athletes. The annual per-school cap is roughly $20.5 million for the 2025–26 academic year, rising about four percent each year over the ten-year term.3WilmerHale. Final Approval for House v NCAA Settlement Brings New Era More Litigation Traditional scholarship limits were replaced by sport-specific roster limits. After Judge Wilken initially rejected the deal in April 2025, finding that immediate roster caps would harm current athletes, the parties amended the agreement in May to add a “Designated Student-Athlete” category protecting players who might otherwise lose their spots.1ESPN. Judge Grants Final Approval House v NCAA Settlement
Two new oversight bodies came out of the settlement. NIL Go, a clearinghouse built by Deloitte and launched on June 11, 2025, requires any endorsement deal worth more than $600 to be submitted for fair-market-value review.4Loeb & Loeb. The Sports Law Playbook Q2 2025 The College Sports Commission, led by former MLB executive Bryan Seeley, was given responsibility for enforcing revenue-sharing rules, roster limits, and NIL compliance.1ESPN. Judge Grants Final Approval House v NCAA Settlement
The Title IX Appeal
Five days after approval, on June 11, 2025, eight female athletes filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit arguing that the back-pay distribution disproportionately favors male athletes in violation of Title IX.3WilmerHale. Final Approval for House v NCAA Settlement Brings New Era More Litigation Judge Wilken ruled that the appeal does not block the injunctive portions of the settlement, so revenue sharing and the new roster framework can proceed. But distribution of the $2.8 billion in back-pay damages is on hold until the appeal is resolved.2Ropes Gray. House v NCAA Settlement Approved Era of Direct Payments to College Athletes Begins Additional objectors later joined the consolidated appeal with challenges on class definitions, program cuts tied to roster limits, and treatment of incoming athletes.5College Sports Litigation Tracker. Tracker
Judge Wilken’s ruling that back-pay distributions are not subject to Title IX is itself stayed pending appeal. She did not definitively resolve whether ongoing direct compensation from schools must be allocated equally between men’s and women’s programs. In February 2025, the Trump administration rescinded Biden-era guidance that had asserted Title IX coverage of all athlete compensation.6Duane Morris. Navigating Title IX Implications NCAA Settlement NIL
Early Enforcement Fights
The College Sports Commission’s first months were rough. By October 2025, it had corrected a reporting error, revising its clearance figures from 8,000 deals worth $80 million down to 6,000 deals worth $35 million, blaming a “clerical error.” It had also denied 332 deals worth about $10 million.7U.S. House of Representatives. Trahan Letter to CSC on Denied NIL Deals Congressional inquiries questioned whether a four-person staff could handle the volume and whether the commission was unnecessarily limiting athlete earnings.
By May 2026, the CSC reported clearing more than 26,000 deals valued at about $242 million.8Spectrum News 1. NIL Enforcement CEO Reminds Schools A significant enforcement test came when the commission blocked $7.5 million in contracts involving University of Nebraska athletes, calling the arrangements “warehousing” of NIL rights without a real activation plan. A neutral arbitrator upheld the rejection in May 2026, affirming the CSC’s authority to treat multimedia rights partners as “associated entities” subject to its review. Lawyers for the House plaintiff class separately moved to argue the commission had overstepped, with a hearing set for June 2026.9Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney. College Sports Commission Prevails in NIL Arbitration Many Power Four schools declined to sign a proposed participation agreement that would formally lock in the commission’s enforcement powers, with some citing guidance from state attorneys general warning of legal constraints on public universities.
The NFL Lost Its Arbitration Shield
Two August 2025 rulings dismantled a core NFL practice: forcing legal disputes into arbitration overseen by Commissioner Roger Goodell.
Flores v. NFL
On August 14, 2025, a unanimous Second Circuit panel ruled that Brian Flores’ racial discrimination lawsuit against the NFL, the Denver Broncos, the New York Giants, and the Houston Texans could proceed to trial. Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge José A. Cabranes called the NFL’s arbitration scheme “arbitration in name only,” finding it provided “no independent arbitral forum, no bilateral dispute resolution, and no procedure.” Allowing the league’s “principal executive officer” to decide the dispute, he wrote, “offends basic presumptions of our arbitration jurisprudence.” The Second Circuit denied rehearing en banc on October 6, 2025, and the Supreme Court declined to reinstate the NFL’s arbitration program.10CPR. Flores Can Go to Court as Second Circuit Slams the NFLs Arbitration Scheme
Gruden v. NFL
Three days earlier, on August 11, 2025, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled 5–2 that the NFL could not force former Raiders head coach Jon Gruden’s lawsuit into arbitration. Gruden sued the league and Goodell in November 2021 alleging a coordinated leak of private emails that ended his coaching career. The court found the NFL Constitution’s arbitration clause “unconscionable and unenforceable,” in part because it would have let Goodell arbitrate a case in which he was himself a target.11ESPN. Nevada Court Rejects NFL Petition Jon Gruden Rehearing The justices also held the NFL Constitution does not, by its plain language, bind former employees.12FindLaw. The National Football League and Roger Goodell v Jon Gruden A unanimous rejection of the NFL’s rehearing petition followed on October 2, 2025.
Both decisions turned on the same structural problem: giving the commissioner unilateral authority to decide cases in which the league itself has a stake.
Criminal Charges Over Betting Integrity
Prosecutors brought the year’s most serious betting-integrity cases against active professional athletes.
Guardians Pitch-Rigging Indictment
On November 9, 2025, federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York unsealed an indictment charging Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz with wire fraud conspiracy, honest services wire fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to influence sporting contests by bribery, and money laundering conspiracy. Prosecutors alleged the two conspired with gamblers to rig individual pitches, intentionally throwing balls or pitches under a specific speed threshold to help parlay bets pay off. The scheme allegedly produced at least $450,000 in winnings for the bettors, with the pitchers receiving kickbacks of $5,000 to $7,000 per incident.13ESPN. Guardians Emmanuel Clase Luis Ortiz Indicted Pitch Rigging14Yahoo Sports. Guardians Pitchers Luis Ortiz Emmanuel Clase Charged With Sports Betting Money Laundering Conspiracy by DOJ Both players pleaded not guilty. Clase was released on $600,000 bond with GPS monitoring; Ortiz was released on $500,000 bond. If convicted on all counts, each faces up to 65 years in prison.15CBS Sports. MLB Betting Scandal Emmanuel Clase Luis L Ortiz Pitch Rigging DOJ Indictment
Jontay Porter
Former Toronto Raptors center Jontay Porter, banned by the NBA in April 2024 for manipulating his own performance and availability to influence prop bets and for directly wagering on NBA games, pleaded guilty on July 10, 2024 to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He was the first active NBA player or coach expelled for gambling since Jack Molinas in 1954. Sentencing was scheduled for December 18, 2025, with federal guidelines suggesting 41 to 51 months in prison.16The New York Times (The Athletic). Jontay Porter Pleads Guilty Betting Scandal
NASCAR Charter Antitrust Settlement
The antitrust lawsuit brought by 23XI Racing, co-owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin, together with Front Row Motorsports, settled on December 11, 2025. The teams had sued over charter arrangements they called anticompetitive. Under the settlement, all 15 charter-holding teams received permanent “evergreen” charters, and 23XI and Front Row had their combined six charters returned. Teams gained a formal governance role and a greater share of revenue, including a portion of international media rights and a one-third cut of new business deals involving teams’ intellectual property. NASCAR also agreed to pay undisclosed monetary damages to the two plaintiff teams.17The New York Times (The Athletic). NASCAR Settlement 23XI Front Row Details18NASCAR. NASCAR Lawsuit Settlement 23XI Front Row
Tennis Players’ Antitrust Suit
On March 18, 2025, the Professional Tennis Players’ Association filed an antitrust suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the ATP Tour, the WTA Tour, the International Tennis Federation, and eventually the four Grand Slam tournament organizers. Captioned Pospisil v. ATP Tour, Inc., the complaint alleges the defendants operate as a “cartel” that caps prize money, restricts off-court earning potential, and uses abusive investigative and arbitration processes. Named plaintiffs include Vasek Pospisil, Nick Kyrgios, and Sorana Cirstea. Novak Djokovic is an executive committee member of the PTPA but is not a named plaintiff. The PTPA filed parallel complaints with the European Commission and the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority.19NPR. Players Group Antitrust Suit Tennis Organizers
In December 2025, Tennis Australia settled separately with the PTPA and agreed to provide confidential financial records, including data on prize money, player NIL rights, and sponsorships, which the PTPA intends to use against the remaining defendants.20The Guardian. Tennis Civil War Erupts With Details of Initial Peace Deal Revealed for First Time The ATP and WTA have called the suit “baseless and misguided.” The case remains active.
Prediction Markets Versus State Gambling Laws
A jurisdictional fight over whether platforms like Kalshi are regulated commodities exchanges or unlicensed gambling operations escalated through 2025 and into early 2026. The underlying question is whether the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive authority over event contracts and preempts state gambling laws.
Courts have split. In April 2026, the Third Circuit ruled 2–1 for Kalshi, holding that its sports-related event contracts are “swaps” subject to exclusive CFTC jurisdiction and that New Jersey gaming regulators cannot enforce state gambling laws against the platform. Kalshi lost in Maryland, Ohio, and Nevada, where a district court ruled its event contracts constitute gambling subject to state regulation. In Massachusetts, gaming regulators blocked Kalshi from obtaining a preliminary injunction.21Reuters. Betting Verdict Kalshi Case Could Shape Prediction Markets Arizona went furthest, filing criminal charges against Kalshi in March 2026 in what was the first criminal action against a CFTC registrant.22Forbes. Prediction Market Regulator Sues 3 States as Kalshi Wins in New Jersey
On April 2, 2026, the CFTC and the Department of Justice filed federal lawsuits against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois, calling state-level enforcement against prediction markets “unprecedented overreach” preempted by federal commodities law.22Forbes. Prediction Market Regulator Sues 3 States as Kalshi Wins in New Jersey Appeals remain pending in the Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits, with oral arguments scheduled through mid-2026.21Reuters. Betting Verdict Kalshi Case Could Shape Prediction Markets
Title IX Enforcement Shifts
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights took aggressive Title IX enforcement action in early 2026. In January, the OCR found San Jose State University in violation of Title IX for allowing “males to compete in women’s sports and access female-only facilities,” ordering the university to adopt biology-based definitions of sex and to restore records to female athletes. A separate investigation was opened into the California Community College Athletic Association’s transgender participation policy, which had permitted transgender female athletes who completed one year of testosterone suppression to compete on women’s teams. The OCR also initiated 18 broader Title IX investigations at institutions alleged to have allowed participation based on gender identity rather than biological sex.23NACUA. Cases and Developments Athletics Sports
Federal Legislation on the Sidelines
Representative Paul Tonko and Senator Richard Blumenthal reintroduced the SAFE Bet Act on March 11, 2025. The bill would set federal minimum standards for online sports betting: a ban on sportsbook advertising during live games, restrictions on promotional inducements like “bonus bets” and “odds boosts,” a cap of five deposits per 24-hour period, mandatory affordability checks for heavy wagering, and prohibitions on using artificial intelligence to target individual bettors with tailored promotions. It would also ban prop bets on college and amateur athletes and create a national self-exclusion list.24U.S. Congress. HR 2087 SAFE Bet Act25U.S. House of Representatives (Rep. Tonko). Tonko Announces SAFE Bet Act Reintroduction The bill was referred to the House Committees on Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources; as of mid-2026 it has not received committee hearings.