


College athletics has fundamentally changed in the last two decades. With students earning thousands—sometimes millions—for their name, image and likeness and changing teams with greater ease via the transfer portal, athletics have transformed from amateur levels to something more akin to a professional sports league.
The imminent ruling on the $2.8 billion House settlement case stands to bring about even more change for the sector.
In the latest episode of The Key, Inside Higher Ed’s news and analysis podcast, Editor in Chief Sara Custer speaks with Karen Weaver, an adjunct assistant professor in the graduate school of education at the University of Pennsylvania, about what the new landscape means for everyone on college campuses, not just those in the athletic department.
“College athletics have played a critical role in higher education for over 100 years,” said Weaver. “The problem is that the money that has come into so much of college athletics at the highest level is just astronomical.”
With coaching salaries well into the millions and eight-figure investments into athletics facilities, the campus starts to look and feel differently, she said. “I think that has an impact on everybody.”
Meanwhile, ensuring athletes have academic success is further complicated when they can change institutions to pursue more lucrative deals, she said.
“The transfer portal has created an enormous burden on academic counselors and faculty when athletes are supposed to make normal progress toward a degree—all of that is very confusing now,” she said.
Weaver explained what policy shifts mean for the future of Olympic teams as well as Division II and III programs. In light of rumors that President Trump plans to sign an executive order to regulate payments for name, image and likeness, Weaver suggested collective bargaining would be a more comprehensive solution to the legal and financial complexities of the current state of affairs.
“I understand collective bargaining with students is tough, I get that, and it’s messy … but it’s still a legitimate outlet to try to address all of these issues and it needs to be talked about more.”
Listen to the full episode here.

by CUPA-HR | April 8, 2025
On March 28, CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and other higher education associations in filing an amicus brief in Pavia v. NCAA, which challenges the association’s eligibility rules with respect to the five-year time limits for student-athletes. The brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
Pavia filed the lawsuit against the NCAA in November 2024, claiming that the NCAA’s ability to limit eligibility for previous junior college transfers by counting their competition years in junior college towards the number of years they are eligible to compete in NCAA sports restrains labor market forces and thus violates antitrust laws. A federal district court judge agreed on the merits of Pavia’s arguments and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules and allowing Pavia only to play an additional season. The judge argued that the ability for student-athletes to earn money through name, image and likeness (NIL) deals thus makes the NCAA’s eligibility rules “commercial,” meaning the rules themselves would not survive antitrust scrutiny. The NCAA appealed this ruling to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case awaits further litigation.
The brief, filed by ACE, CUPA-HR, and five other higher education associations, argues that all eligibility rules set by the NCAA, including the five-year time limitations challenged in this case, aim to ensure “the primacy of the educational context for the student-athlete experience.” The brief argues that the preliminary injunction placed by the district court threatens to “shift the formulation and enforcement of the NCAA’s eligibility rules from educators and athletics administrators to federal courts” as any student-athlete disqualified by an eligibility rule could request a court to file an injunction and argue that the eligibility rule restricts their ability to pursue NIL deals. This would ultimately result in a patchwork of waivers granted by judges nationwide, undermining the national system of enforcement already in place through athletic associations like the NCAA and cementing federal judges as the unofficial court of appeals for the NCAA.
CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to this court case.

In a historic move for collegiate athletics, the NCAA has officially recognized women’s wrestling as its 91st championship sport, marking a significant milestone for
The sport’s elevation from the NCAA Emerging Sports for Women program reflects its rapid growth and increasing popularity. Currently, 76 NCAA schools sponsor women’s wrestling programs, with an additional 17 programs expected to join in the 2024-25 academic year. More than 1,200 women wrestlers currently compete at the collegiate level, with at least 45% representing diverse or international backgrounds.
“This means so much to women’s wrestling and to women’s sports in general,” said Kennedy Blades, a University of Iowa wrestler and 2024 Olympic silver medalist. “Since I was a little girl, I dreamed about being an NCAA national wrestling champion. It will fulfill so many little girls’ dreams, including mine.”
The path to championship status began in 2020 when women’s wrestling joined the NCAA’s Emerging Sports program. The sport achieved the required minimum of 40 varsity-level programs during the 2022-23 academic year, leading to a recommendation from the NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics in February to advance to championship status.
To support this initiative, the NCAA Board of Governors has approved $1.7 million in funding to establish the National Collegiate Women’s Wrestling Championships. The competition will feature athletes from all three NCAA divisions competing against one another in a unified tournament format.
Rich Bender, executive director of USA Wrestling, celebrated the decision, noting that “Women’s wrestling has been an Olympic sport since 2004 and is the fastest-growing sport for young women in our nation.” The sport joins five other former emerging sports that have achieved NCAA championship status since 1994: rowing, ice hockey, water polo, bowling, and beach volleyball.
“This milestone for women’s wrestling is a declaration that women deserve equitable opportunities to compete, to lead, and to thrive,” said Ragean Hill, chair of the NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics and executive associate athletics director at Charlotte. “It’s a step toward gender parity in sports and a powerful reminder that when women are given the platform to rise, they inspire generations to come.”
A dedicated women’s wrestling committee will now work with NCAA staff to develop the framework for the inaugural 2026 championship tournament. The historic decision not only provides new competitive opportunities for female athletes but also strengthens the NCAA’s commitment to expanding women’s sports participation across collegiate athletics.

by CUPA-HR | February 27, 2024
On February 23, a federal judge with the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction barring the NCAA from enforcing its rules prohibiting name, image and likeness compensation for recruits. The injunction applies nationwide.
The policy in question prohibited student-athletes from negotiating and signing NIL contracts prior to enrolling at a college or university. This meant NIL compensation could not be used to “induce” a recruit to a specific school. This policy stood in contrast to the NCAA’s policy for student-athletes already enrolled at a college or university, who, as of 2021, have been allowed to seek NIL compensation.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker explained, “The NCAA’s prohibition likely violates federal antitrust law and harms student-athletes.” He clarified, “Without the give and take of a free market, student-athletes simply have no knowledge of their true NIL value. It is this suppression of negotiating leverage and the consequential lack of knowledge that harms student-athletes.” He further argued that the NCAA “fails to show how the timing of when a student-athlete enters such an agreement would destroy the goal of preserving amateurism,” thereby not establishing rationale for treating recruits differently than enrolled student-athletes.
The lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia after the NCAA investigated the University of Tennessee for potential violations of the policy. The NCAA will likely appeal the case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overseeing Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan, but in the meantime, reports indicate the organization is already considering potential policy changes.
This case is only one of the lawsuits targeting the NCAA and its policies towards student-athletes. Several lawsuits are currently pending before various federal courts, alleging the NCAA in its current form violates federal antitrust law. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Board recently ruled that the Dartmouth men’s basketball team are employees of the university, allowing them to organize and schedule a union representation election for early March. The NLRB has also issued a complaint against the University of Southern California, the PAC-12 Conference and the NCAA, alleging the three have misclassified USC’s football and men’s and women’s basketball players as student-athletes rather than employees and that the three organizations are joint employers of the athletes.
CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for and keep members apprised of any updates on these cases.

by CUPA-HR | December 21, 2022
On December 15, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)’s Region 31 announced it will pursue a complaint against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the Pac-12 Conference and the University of Southern California (USC) for violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by misclassifying student-athletes as non-employees, unless the matter is settled. On February 8, the National College Players Association filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge with the region alleging that USC; the University of California, Los Angeles; the Pac-12 Conference; and the NCAA are “joint employers” who violated the NLRA by “repeatedly misclassifying employees as ‘student-athlete’ non-employees.”
Region 31 is part of the NLRB’s Office of General Counsel, which is responsible for receiving charges from employees, unions or employers that allege violations of the NLRA. The region decides whether to issue a complaint on charges it receives. If the region does not issue a complaint, the matter is generally closed. If the region decides to file a complaint, however, the case is litigated before an administrative law judge.
Region 31’s complaint is the latest development regarding the employment status of student-athletes. The National College Players Association’s February 8 charge followed NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s memorandum issued last September in which she argues that student-athletes are employees under the NLRA and are therefore afforded all statutory protections as prescribed under the law.
The region’s decision in response to the February ULP charge means the NCAA, Pac-12 Conference and USC can either settle or litigate the case. A final ruling could take years to come to fruition, however, as both parties in the case could appeal the decisions made by the administrative law judge to the five-member NLRB. The NLRB’s decision can be appealed to federal appellate courts and from there all the way up to the Supreme Court.
The news of the region’s complaint follows the announcement earlier in the day that Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker would be the NCAA’s next president in March after his last term in office expires in January. Baker, a Republican, is known for his work to build bipartisan consensus on policy in Massachusetts, which the NCAA may recognize as a strength as they continue to engage Congress on other issues related to student-athlete compensation. It is unclear what, if any, impact this will have on the ULP charges.
CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of this case and others involving student-athlete employment classification that may emerge in the future.