In this week’s Film Room, we update you on:
- House party and objector submissions on roster limits
- A new Arizona state NIL law that may conflict with the contemplated clearinghouse
- Reporting regarding a potential presidential commission on college athletics
House Roster Limit Submissions and Update
Last week, the parties in the House case submitted their responses to the Court’s April 23 order calling for revisions to the proposed settlement’s treatment of roster limits.
On May 7, the parties offered changes to the terms of the draft settlement that would enable institutions to exceed the specified roster limits to grant spots to current student-athletes and those recruited for the next (2025-26) academic year. Specifically, the revised settlement now includes the following new language:
“Member Institutions, in consultation with their athletic departments, shall be permitted, in their discretion, to exceed NCAA or conference roster limits with respect to any ‘Designated Student-Athletes’ [student-athletes on a roster during the 2024-25 year or initial enrollees who had been promised a roster spot for the 2025-26 year] for the duration of the Designated Student-Athlete’s athletic eligibility. Each Member Institution must prepare and report a list of its Designated Student-Athletes in good faith within thirty days of Final Approval, with a copy to Class Counsel. For clarity, each Member Institution retains its current discretion to decide independently which student-athletes will be on its rosters, including whether to exceed the roster limits with respect to its Designated Student-Athletes. Nothing in this settlement or NCAA rules restricts the ability of Member Institutions to allow student-athletes who were previously on the Member Institution’s roster and who transferred as a result of being told by an institutional staff member that they would be removed from that roster due to the implementation of NCAA or conference roster limits from transferring back as a Designated Student-Athlete for that Member Institution.” [Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs’ 5/7/25 brief at pp.72-73]
The Court ordered an expedited briefing schedule on the party submissions. Objectors have already filed responses, arguing that the proposed changes are not sufficient. Party replies are due May 16.
Proposed Arizona State Law Regarding NIL
On May 7, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs signed Senate Bill 1615 into law. Among other things, the law provides:
“G. A REGULATOR MAY NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. PREVENT A STUDENT ATHLETE FROM FULLY PARTICIPATING IN AN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC PROGRAM BECAUSE THE STUDENT ATHLETE DOES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: (a) EARNS COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF THE STUDENT ATHLETE’S OWN NAME, IMAGE OR LIKENESS.”
What happens if the contemplated clearinghouse determines that a portion of a given student-athlete’s NIL deal is above market and the student-athlete disagrees, invoking this section when seeking injunctive relief, which the law expressly permits (see Section I of SB 1615)?
Potential Presidential Commission
As we’ve previously noted, even if the House settlement is approved, various issues will remain, including potential conflicts between state NIL laws and national rules that aim to provide a national standard for competition.
Reportedly, plans are underway to establish a presidential commission that could address the state NIL law discrepancies and more. We’ll keep you posted.
[View source.]
