College athletics is at one of the great inflection points in its long history, and the College of William and Mary is not insulated from the tides of change. In the coming months and years, the university’s administration will be forced to make several momentous decisions that will shape the future of Tribe athletics.
For over a century, the philosophical framework underlying college sports was defined by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, an organization that has governed intercollegiate athletic competition since 1906. From its earliest days, the NCAA made clear that its primary mission was to establish and propagate the principle of amateurism. College athletics should be for those who participate “in competitive physical sports only for the pleasure, and the physical, mental, moral, and social benefits directly derived therefrom,” the NCAA said in 1916.
The next 105 years of college athletics were shaped according to that dogma. Student-athletes were prevented from monetizing their name, image and likeness in any form, meaning they forfeited their right to do things like appear in commercials or accept endorsement deals. Scholarships and grants marked the extent of the compensation they were allowed to receive for their athletic efforts.
The bedrock of amateurism wholly disintegrated in 2021 when the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA’s restrictions on athlete compensation violated antitrust law. A cascade of further legal defeats battered the NCAA over the following years, wresting away much of its enforcement power and blurring the line between college and professional sports — to the point that many claim the two are now indistinguishable.
College athletes are now permitted to accept gifts from donors, endorse brands and more. As schools still are not allowed to directly pay their athletes, many of these opportunities are funneled through third-party NIL collectives, which attempt to lure transfers to their affiliated schools with promises of paydays. Athletes are permitted to transfer schools between seasons with essentially no restrictions, and the NCAA’s ability to enforce its eligibility rules is in question. Some players who have technically exhausted their eligibility still enter the transfer portal in the hopes that a court case will allow them to compete again.
However, the most monumental change of all — one that William and Mary has already begun reckoning with — is still impending.
The House v. NCAA case, perhaps the most consequential lawsuit in the history of college athletics, was brought against the NCAA, the Power Four conferences and the Pac-12 in 2020 by four then-current college athletes.
“The House legal claims say two things,” Mit Winter ’01, a prominent attorney specializing in sports law and NIL law, said. “One, that some former and current college athletes are owed back damages because they were not able to monetize their name, image and likeness before July 1, 2021. The argument is that the rule that restricted college athletes from being able to monetize their NIL violated the antitrust law. So that’s the backwards-looking part of the case.”
The parties agreed to settle the case in May 2024, and the terms of the settlement were preliminarily approved in October 2024. If approved, the proposed settlement will require its defendants to distribute $2.8 billion in damages to current and former college athletes who were not able to monetize their NIL dating back to 2016. The NCAA intends to raise most of the money by reducing the revenue it distributes to all of its member institutions.
There is a forward-looking part of the case, which Winter explained to The Flat Hat.
“NCAA rules that prohibit schools from paying NIL compensation to athletes violate antitrust law,” Winter said. “That part of the case is seeking to change the rules to allow schools, conferences and even the NCAA to just directly pay NIL compensation to athletes.”
If approved, the proposed settlement will create a system in which schools and conferences can directly share revenue with athletes, distributing it across athletic programs however they see fit. Schools would be held under a $20.5 million annual “salary cap” that would increase by 4% every year. These rules would go into effect at the start of the 2025-2026 academic year.
The NCAA allowed its member institutions to opt out of the settlement but required them to submit their decisions by March 1, 2025, over a month before the release of the final terms of the settlement. The final approval hearing took place in front of federal judge Claudia Wilken Monday, April 7. Wilken is tasked with determining whether or not the settlement is fair, and she is unlikely to make her decision for days or weeks.
Although most expect Wilken to approve the settlement, no outcome is guaranteed.
“There’s still a not-insignificant chance that she denies it,” Winter said. “She did already preliminarily approve it back in October, but there have been a lot of objections filed since that time. It is really hard to predict how those objections have or have not swayed the judge’s decision-making process and whether she thinks the settlement’s fair or not.”
If Wilken denies the settlement, it could be revised, face more litigation or even go to trial, an outcome which could potentially bankrupt the NCAA. No matter what happens, further lawsuits challenging the terms of the settlement are also expected.
For these reasons and others, College President Katherine Rowe and Director of Athletics Brian Mann decided to put off the opt-in decision by a year. Until at least 2026, William and Mary will not participate in revenue sharing.
“We want definitive clarity on the financial and other aspects of the settlement and what it means for our student-athletes,” Mann wrote in an email to The Flat Hat. “There have been an overwhelming number of comments and objections filed since preliminary approval was granted last fall, and there is simply too much uncertainty at this time. We are ready to opt-in in 2026 pending the final details of the settlement.”
William and Mary’s choice made it the only Coastal Athletic Association school to go against the wishes of the league’s Board of Directors, which voted that all members of the conference would opt into the settlement by the NCAA’s deadline of March 1.
Why did William and Mary seemingly act with more caution than its peers regarding the potential terms of the settlement? Why did the university decline the option to directly pay its players, potentially putting itself at a competitive disadvantage?
William and Mary believes its teams can remain competitive during the 2025-2026 academic year, even without the option of revenue sharing.
“We will continue to compete in the CAA and beyond while maintaining stability within the individual programs,” the school wrote in a statement.
Winter also serves as a board member of the 1693 Alliance, a third-party NIL collective that partners with the College. He concurs with the school’s decision, as in his view, the academic reputation of William and Mary will keep Tribe athletics relevant and attractive to potential recruits, at least for the next year.
“With the things William and Mary has to offer academically and the type of people that are going to William and Mary already, NIL is maybe not as huge of a factor as it is at some other schools,” Winter said. “I think they’ll be fine for now.”
In the meantime, William and Mary must assess what its revenue sharing and NIL strategies will look like if and when it opts into the settlement. Although the settlement’s proposed salary cap is $20.5 million, it is improbable that William and Mary, or any other CAA school, will be able to pay its athletes this amount.
NIL collectives will remain relevant at big-budget schools like The Ohio State University, allowing them to stack extra money on top of the $20.5 million provided by the school. At places like William and Mary that almost certainly won’t hit the cap, it will be easier for third-party compensation to be routed directly through the school. As a result, it is feasible that William and Mary could simply eliminate its NIL collective in the near future.
“Every school can pay up to $20.5 million, and it’s highly unlikely that William and Mary’s going to hit that cap,” Winter said. “So at that point, people can just give money to the school and the school can pay it to the athletes instead of having to give it to a collective which then pays the athletes. In that scenario, it’s most likely that there’s not going to be a collective because there’s no need for a collective.”
When asked about the future of the 1693 Alliance and William and Mary’s NIL apparatus as a whole, Mann was noncommittal, writing that the school will make changes as required.
“As everyone involved in DI intercollegiate athletics has learned, NIL is an extremely important aspect of an athletics program, and it is critical that each school handles it in the best way for that institution,” Mann wrote. “We started our program two years ago and have grown it each year. We consider the 1693 Alliance a valuable partner. As we opt in to the settlement, we will make any needed adjustments to our NIL program.”
If the 1693 Alliance and William and Mary’s greater NIL apparatus survives, it must reckon with proposed new rules that scrutinize NIL deals valued over $600.
“This House settlement includes some terms that are attempting to make it much harder for collectives to operate the way that they’ve been operating for the past three and a half years,” Winter said. “All deals that an athlete does with a collective that are $600 or more will have to go through this new enforcement entity that will review those deals to see whether they’re within fair market value.”
Winter explained that Deloitte will oversee NIL collective deals and determine fair market value.
“Deloitte is going to be the entity that’s making that assessment,” Winter said. “If they think a deal is not in fair market value for athletes and the services the athletes are providing, then they’ll tell the athlete, ‘you can’t do the deal or else you’re going to be ineligible.’”
William and Mary must also decide how to divvy up its revenue fund between its 23 varsity athletic programs. Many schools have adopted a split of 75% to football, 15% to men’s basketball, 5% to women’s basketball and 5% to the rest of their programs. Critics of the settlement have complained that, if accepted, it will create further inequity between the “revenue sports” — football and men’s basketball — and every other sport.
Critics also take issue with the settlement’s proposed limits on roster spots, perhaps the primary reason William and Mary decided to delay opting in.
“[The settlement] is going to include roster limits for all sports,” Winter said. “For a lot of sports, those roster limits will be going down. And so schools right now are already having to cut a lot of athletes, telling them they’re not going to have a spot on their team next year because they have to reduce their roster size, and I don’t think William and Mary wanted to do that.”
Although William and Mary stated that it isn’t considering cutting any sports entirely and that its decision to delay opting in “preserves the composition of our teams for the next year,” it is unclear what the composition of the Tribe’s rosters will look like in 2026-2027 and beyond.
“As you know, the settlement eliminates scholarship limits and institutes roster limits for each sport,” Mann wrote. “In some cases, a sport’s current roster size could be reduced, whereas others may grow. We will be looking very closely at the final settlement details and once we know them, determine how we will build our rosters for our 23 varsity sports.”
William and Mary believes it will not be penalized for time taken to make a decision. If the settlement is approved, the school will have its NCAA revenue distributions reduced whether it opts in or not — the plan to pay the back damages mandates as much.
However, the College maintained in its statement that “no [further] negative consequences have been discussed by the NCAA” and the NCAA has not identified “financial penalties for an institution that does not opt in.”
The CAA has not indicated any intention to penalize William and Mary for deciding against the rest of the conference. CAA Commissioner Joe D’Antonio told The Flat Hat that the two parties remain committed to finding the best path forward.
“The CAA and its Board of Directors are working very closely with William and Mary on this matter,” D’Antonio said. “I remain very optimistic that if and when the settlement is approved and finalized that we will be able to bring this to a positive resolution.”
Mann emphasized the CAA’s continued support as William and Mary decides its own path for NIL.
“The CAA has been very supportive,” Mann wrote. “We have engaged in numerous, substantive conversations, and we expect our future relationship to continue to be very strong.”
No matter how William and Mary ultimately decides to navigate the House settlement, the school is at a crossroads. If William and Mary decides it wants to continue being competitive at its current level, it will have to demonstrate significant institutional and financial commitment.
“I view this as an inflection point in college athletics — and there have been a number of them back in the past — where a school can say, ‘alright, what level of college athletics do we want to be a part of?’” Winter said. “‘Do we want to try and compete at this level, or do we think, either because of financial resources or philosophical differences, that we don’t want to be part of that level?’”
Winter shared that William and Mary will need to decide what plane of competition they want to be on.
“Depending on what a school wants to do, it just presents that opportunity,” Winter said. “So if a school like William and Mary decides they do want to try and compete at a higher level, now’s the time to make that decision.”
When asked if William and Mary would consider a change in conference or philosophical direction, Mann made clear that the school is satisfied with the CAA, but noted that William and Mary will monitor the upcoming changes in the college sports landscape and adapt accordingly.
“We are very happy with our membership in the CAA and we have the utmost respect for our fellow schools,” Mann wrote. “As we move forward, of course we will pay attention to the shifting landscape in intercollegiate athletics. A big part of my job is to make sure that William & Mary is in the best possible position to benefit our student-athletes and our university.”
Although uncertainty abounds in all things related to the House settlement, one thing is certain: the direction Mann and the administration choose to take will fundamentally shape Tribe athletics for the foreseeable future.
