The journey towards student-athlete compensation in the United States has been marked by significant legal milestones. These cases and legislative actions have challenged the traditional amateurism model
of the NCAA and paved the way for athletes to receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Understanding these legal developments provides insight into the evolving landscape of college sports.
The Fair Pay to Play Act
A pivotal moment in the student-athlete compensation debate was the introduction of California's Fair Pay to Play Act in 2019. This legislation allowed college athletes in California to profit from their NIL rights, setting a precedent for other states to follow. The bill, authored by state senators Nancy Skinner and Steven Bradford, was supported by testimony from former athletes and aimed to address the financial disparities in college sports.
The Fair Pay to Play Act challenged the NCAA's long-standing amateurism model, which prohibited athletes from receiving compensation beyond scholarships and stipends. The passage of this act prompted a national conversation about the rights of student-athletes and led to similar legislative efforts across the country. As a result, the NCAA was compelled to reconsider its policies and adopt an interim NIL policy.
NCAA v. Alston
Another landmark case in the realm of student-athlete compensation was NCAA v. Alston, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2021. This case addressed the NCAA's restrictions on education-related benefits for athletes. The Court ruled unanimously against the NCAA, emphasizing the commercial nature of college sports and criticizing the outdated amateurism model.
The decision in NCAA v. Alston marked a significant shift in the legal landscape, as it opened the door for athletes to receive compensation for education-related expenses. The ruling also highlighted the need for the NCAA to adapt to the changing dynamics of college athletics and recognize the economic contributions of student-athletes.
House v. NCAA Settlement
The House v. NCAA settlement in 2025 further advanced the cause of student-athlete compensation. This class action lawsuit, filed by athletes Grant House and Sedona Prince, sought to lift restrictions on revenue sharing from broadcast rights. The settlement allowed schools to share up to $20.5 million of revenue annually with athletes, signaling a move towards recognizing athletes as economic participants in the industry.
These legal milestones have collectively reshaped the landscape of student-athlete compensation, challenging the traditional notions of amateurism and paving the way for a more equitable system. As the conversation around compensation continues, these cases and legislative actions serve as critical reference points in the ongoing evolution of college sports.
