There was no immediate reaction from Gonzaga following court approval of the landmark House vs. NCAA lawsuit settlement on Friday evening.
No statement on the Bulldogs’ website. Nothing from athletic director Chris Standiford or basketball coach Mark Few on social media. Nothing but radio silence in Spokane, where it appears victors don’t gloat.
That’s right, folks. The Zags stand to become one of the biggest winners in the post-House world, where schools can share revenue with athletes starting July 1.
And they aren’t alone. Any school that values basketball and doesn’t compete in (or care about) football could create for itself a substantial advantage in the talent-acquisition process.
Allow us to explain.
The revenue-sharing component features a cap of $20.5 million in the 2025-26 competition year, with annual increases expected. The power conference schools will undoubtedly max out in order to avoid blowback in recruiting, but there’s no requirement to do so.
Each athletic department will determine how to allocate the money, but the generally accepted breakdown in the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and SEC will result in about $15 million devoted to football rosters, roughly $3 million to men’s basketball and the rest to Olympic sports.
Schools with rich basketball traditions (UCLA, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Duke) could exceed the average within the Power Four and share $4 million to $5 million with their basketball players, giving them an edge relative to intra-conference peers that prioritize football.
But schools without football don’t have to feed the beast. Gonzaga could plow as much as it wants into men’s basketball ($5 million, $7 million, whatever) as long as it doesn’t exceed the cap and makes the requisite commitment to Olympic sports.
It’s no different for the Big East. Whatever cash they muster can be earmarked for basketball. (Connecticut plays football but likely will prioritize basketball to the greatest extent possible.)
What’s more, the Zags can make use of third-party resources to supplement their revenue sharing.
The House settlement does not prohibit NIL. Instead, it attempts to eliminate pay-for-play funded by booster collectives and introduce a legitimate mechanism for compensating athletes for legitimate business opportunities.
The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12 — the five named defendants in the House lawsuit — have created an independent entity to track revenue sharing and enforce NIL payments. It’s called the College Sports Commission and will be led by Bryan Seeley, a former chief investigator for Major League Baseball and assistant U.S. attorney.
Athletes are required to report their contracts to ensure authenticity. If the deal is rejected, athletes can adjust the and resubmit or seek arbitration. Schools that allow athletes to compete with rejected deals could be subject to penalties assessed by the CSC.
Put another way: The more legitimate business opportunities available for athletes, the better.
Schools located in communities that are ionate about basketball will, in theory, have more avenues to compensate athletes with real NIL than schools in communities obsessed with football.
Combine the business opportunities in Spokane with the athletic department’s ability to disproportionately compensate its basketball team — as compared to the football-playing schools — and the Zags are extraordinarily well-positioned for the next era.
In the post-House world, it pays to not pay the football beast.
Other winners and losers from the lawsuit settlement …
Loser: The fans. Anything that increases expenses for athletic departments results in a greater burden placed on fans. Not only will direct donations be needed like never before, but constituents in the local business communities will be under pressure to provide NIL opportunities, as well.
Winner: Ed O’Bannon. The former UCLA basketball star started this decade-long economic transformation when he took the NCAA and EA Sports to court over the use of his likeness and image in a video game. His successful lawsuit led to NIL, which led to revenue sharing.
Loser: istrative bloat. The budgetary pressures caused by $20.5 million in player compensation will cause schools to redirect all available cash. That could lead to staff downsizing and the elimination of mid-level managerial positions so pervasive in major college athletics. Expect to see fewer deputy senior assistant athletic directors for changing the water cooler.
Winner: Billable hours. Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman, the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, are expected to share $475 million in legal fees. And according to the Associated Press, they requested an additional $250 million over the 10-year payout period for the damages portion of the settlement. Kessler and Berman won’t have to sue the NCAA ever again (although they might).
Loser: Olympic sports. At the very least, schools will create tiers for their Olympic sports, with some receiving more resources for revenue-sharing and staff salaries than others. For example, the Big Ten likely will prioritize volleyball, while the SEC will make sure softball is well-funded. At worst, low-priority programs will be turned into club sports or eliminated altogether.
Winner: Claudia Wilken. The 75-year-old U.S. District Court Judge for Northern California will be ed as the person who changed college sports forever. Wilken, who ruled in favor of O’Bannon a decade ago, holds degrees from Stanford and Cal – two universities whose academic and athletic missions traditionally have stood in stark contrast to the revolution Wilken orchestrated.
Loser: NCAA vs. Oklahoma Board of Regents. The 1984 case, which went to the Supreme Court, created the realignment era by allowing individual conferences to control their media rights (instead of the NCAA). For four decades, it stood as the most significant event in college sports history.
As of Friday night, it has company.
