By Darryl Jacobs
April was supposed to be the month that would change collegiate athletics. The proposed House v. NCAA settlement, which would reshape how college athletes are paid, is now facing legal opposition that has delayed its rollout. While many universities have been preparing for a 2025–26 launch of revenue sharing, new legal filings suggest those plans may have been prematurely optimistic.
A Push to Delay Implementation
Attorney Laura Reathaford is among those objecting to the revised settlement. She has formally asked U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken to pause the implementation of the court’s injunction until all appeals are exhausted. Reathaford’s concern is rooted in potential harm to athletes—particularly those at risk of losing their roster spots as schools adjust to anticipated scholarship caps under the new system.
Weatherford argues that allowing the deal to go into effect before all legal challenges are resolved could lead to irreversible consequences for many student athletes. She believes a temporary stay would help avoid “fundamental unfairness.” If granted, this pause could postpone the settlement’s impact for many months or even years, especially if appeals reach the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.
This request is critical because it challenges the widespread assumption that the settlement is a done deal. Many college administrators have already begun recalibrating rosters, budgets, and compliance strategies in preparation for the changes. If the court hits pause, those institutions could scramble to undo early decisions based on a timeline that may no longer hold.
More Objections: The Grandfathering Dilemma
Reathaford isn’t alone. Attorneys Douglas M. DePeppe and Robert B. Hinckley Jr. recently filed objections, focusing on the settlement’s provision that schools can “grandfather” in current athletes under existing scholarship terms. While that might sound protective on the surface, they argue it lacks fundamental safeguards.
They contend that many institutions have already begun trimming rosters—even in the short time since the latest version of the settlement was made public in April. As a result, they say, there’s little chance schools will reverse those cuts, even if technically allowed to keep affected athletes. Without a strong incentive, why would schools bring back players they’ve already let go?
The Legal Threshold: Reasonable, Not Perfect
While these objections raise valid concerns, the legal question before Judge Wilken isn’t whether the settlement is flawless but whether it’s “reasonable” given the complexity of the issue. Over the course of the case, Wilken has spoken positively about many aspects of the deal, which signal she may be inclined to approve it despite imperfections. The notion that “less bad” might be “good enough” under the law makes this moment so consequential. The judge doesn’t have to endorse the agreement as the best possible outcome—just one that balances competing interests in a fair and workable way.
What’s at Stake for College Sports
This case is about far more than legal technicalities. It’s about the immediate and long-term future of college athletics. Schools will implement new compensation structures and scholarship limits without a stay, likely to result in tough roster decisions that leave some athletes on the outside looking in. If the injunction is delayed, current athletes might avoid immediate harm—but the momentum toward revenue sharing could stall.
Either way, student-athletes, athletic departments, and conferences wonder what to do next. The anticipation of long-overdue economic fairness for college athletes is still uncertain.
Conclusion: Reform on the Edge
The House settlement represents the new NCAA model, opening the door for athletes to receive a share of the billions of dollars generated by their performance. However, legal resistance could freeze progress, delay relief, and confuse everyone involved.
Whether Judge Wilken allows the settlement to proceed immediately—or hits the brakes—will send a clear message about how this next chapter in college sports reform unfolds. And that decision can’t come soon enough for athletes whose futures depend on clarity.
Darryl Jacobs is an ESPN & CBS Sports Network Commentator/Analyst, former successful college head coach, athletic administrator, and sports executive with over two decades of experience in collegiate and professional sports.