Lawyers in the landmark House v. NCAA lawsuit filed detailed settlement terms on Friday that revealed the new roster limits replacing scholarship caps across all college sports starting in the 2025-26 season.
Whereas swimming and diving programs were previously allotted 14 scholarships for women and 9.9 for men, they will soon be permitted to offer up to 30 scholarships for both men and women. Nearly 800 new scholarships are being made available total among the 40-plus NCAA sports listed in the settlement, but schools are not required to distribute scholarships to each player.
“We can work with this number,” one Power Five swim coach told SwimSwam.
Division I swimming and diving programs that do not belong to a Power Five conference can opt out of the roster limits if they choose not to share revenue with their athletes. The House v. NCAA settlement terms outlined how the NCAA and its Division I member schools will pay $277 million annually over a decade to cover the $2.78 billion in back damages to former Division I athletes dating back to 2016.
That’s on top of a 10-year revenue-sharing agreement that gives athletic departments the ability to distribute money directly to college athletes, likely at least $20 million total per school. A salary cap of sorts, that figure is expected to grow to almost $33 million by 2036.
Earlier this week, we reported how the SEC and Big Ten were discussing roster limits of 23 men and 35 women. The cost of new scholarships, revenue sharing, and backpay for lost name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities is expected to be upwards of $30 million a year for some top-tier programs.
Notably, it appears that the NCAA will not be the leading authority enforcing these settlement terms. Instead, the court will appoint a “special master” to resolve any disputes related to the new rules. Athletes and schools can also appeal punishments under a new arbitration process.
Judge Claudia Wilken will review the proposed settlement terms and deliver her decision by early September. In the meantime, former Arizona State swimmer Grant House and the other plaintiffs are working on a website that will allow athletes to calculate how much money they might be entitled to from the pool of damages.
NCAA Scholarship Limits Per Sport
| Sport | Gender | Old limit | New limit | Increase |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumbling | Women | 14 | 55 | 41 |
| Baseball | Men | 11.7 | 34 | 22.3 |
| Basketball | Men | 13 | 15 | 2 |
| Basketball | Women | 15 | 15 | 0 |
| Beach volleyball | Women | 6 | 19 | 13 |
| Bowling | Women | 5 | 11 | 6 |
| Cross country | Men | 5 | 17 | 12 |
| Cross country | Women | 6 | 17 | 11 |
| Equestrian | Women | 15 | 50 | 35 |
| Fencing | Men | 4.5 | 24 | 19.5 |
| Fencing | Women | 5 | 24 | 19 |
| Field hockey | Women | 12 | 27 | 15 |
| Football | Men | 85 | 105 | 20 |
| Golf | Men | 4.5 | 9 | 4.5 |
| Golf | Women | 6 | 9 | 3 |
| Gym | Men | 6.3 | 20 | 13.7 |
| Gym | Women | 12 | 20 | 8 |
| Ice hockey | Men | 18 | 26 | 8 |
| Ice hockey | Women | 18 | 26 | 8 |
| Track | Men | 12.6 | 45 | 35.4 |
| Track | Women | 18 | 45 | 27 |
| Lacrosse | Men | 12.6 | 48 | 35.4 |
| Lacrosse | Women | 12 | 38 | 26 |
| Rifle | Both | 3.6 | 12 | 8.4 |
| Rowing | Women | 20 | 68 | 48 |
| Skiing | Men | 6.3 | 16 | 9.7 |
| Skiing | Women | 7 | 16 | 9 |
| Soccer | Men | 9.9 | 28 | 18.1 |
| Soccer | Women | 14 | 28 | 14 |
| Softball | Women | 12 | 25 | 13 |
| Stunt | Both | 14 | 65 | 51 |
| Swim | Men | 9.9 | 30 | 20.1 |
| Swim | Women | 14 | 30 | 16 |
| Tennis | Men | 4.5 | 10 | 5.5 |
| Tennis | Women | 8 | 10 | 2 |
| Triathlon | Women | 6.5 | 14 | 7.5 |
| Volleyball | Men | 4.5 | 18 | 13.5 |
| Volleyball | Women | 12 | 18 | 6 |
| Water polo | Men | 4.5 | 24 | 19.5 |
| Water polo | Women | 8 | 24 | 16 |
| Wrestling | Men | 9.9 | 30 | 20.1 |
| Wrestling | Women | 10 | 30 | 20 |
So many things need to be clarified (and might change depending on what happens in the lawsuit over athletes being employees or not).
From the article:
=====================
Division I swimming and diving programs that do not belong to a Power Five conference can opt out of the roster limits if they choose not to share revenue with their athletes.
===============
What will the definition of revenue be with regard to athletes, will it include scholarships?
Title IX always tried to equate scholarships. It’s not clear to me whether that compliance will now be based on scholarships or roster limits or both.
Anyone know?
I don’t know, but based on what this article and others have stated, it appears to me that it would be roster limits, but there are still a few other lawsuits out there that can change things even more. This is why I think there will be several men’s teams cut, maybe even replaced with women’s teams in other sports.
It does not say how much each person will or should get paid.
This just makes me more pessimistic about men’s D1 sports being around, I really hope I am wrong.
There is a special place in h*ll for Grant House. I know the football and basketball guys probably treating him like a king rn
Notably, Arizona State lists 49 swimmers on the roster on Swimcloud.
So, 19 swimmers (roughly 40%) will need to be cut from the roster on which Grant House elected to swim all those years rather than “going pro” and earning whatever he was able to earn on the free market.
I can see this happen, NCAA says that the schools do not need to keep 16 schools as a minimum for D1 but it will be lowered to 14, and 2 men’s teams will be cut (assuming Title IX is still in effect).
————————
I see this mainly for schools in the Power 5 conferences that have men’s football teams, for other sports the cuts will be more random.
Side note to this – I think this ends up massively helping College Baseball if they get the marketing right. I’ve always thought that the baseball scholarship limit was very low and given that the coaches salaries are in the millions now makes me think there is some funding to go around.
What coaches are going to give up some of their salaries for more scholarships, I am sure a few but most will not.
SCREW YOU GRANT HOUSE
30 is a good number, although I am still surprised the women’s number isn’t higher. I suppose the schools would just spend less on the men to remain compliant.
Schools that had rosters of 40+ were too bloated anyways IMO.
But would the conferences impose lower limits still?
The SEC and Big10 have already discussed a 24 limit on men’s rosters. I’m curious though if that may change with this development. Would love if those bigger conferences kept their roster limits at the max allowed.
Sounds good, but who is going to pay for it?
What will happen to what the conferences have planned where it does not match this, ex 35 women spots vs 30 spots?
It just got taken out of their hands. 30 is the max.
good question, uncharted territory. After someone reads the full agreement / verdict we might have a better idea.
Who is going to pay for this?
If Title IX still exists, I think this will mean that a lot of Men’s programs being cut, at least for schools that have Football.
It looks like all the extra womens’ scholarships are going to Tumbling and Equestrian
Keep in mind they are just scholarship limits and roster caps. Many teams today do not award all the scholarships they are permitted to award. So, raising the scholarship limits will not necessarily equate to more scholarships being awarded in any particular sport at any particular school – – scholarships are still the school’s option.
The bad part is that the roster caps do not appear to be “optional” for any Power 4 conference school.
So, roster cuts to kids currently on Power 4 rosters appear to be definite and will likely devastate many swimmers. More scholarship are just a possibility.
Well, I bet the 25% of swimmers that are going to cut don’t think the team is bloated – kids are busting their butts practicing twice a day, getting faster, developing and then will still get cut because the lawyers representing former athletes can’t figure out how to phase in changes over time or how to separate walk-on athletes from the conversation.
Its an awful lesson to teach kids who follow the rules for so many years just to dramatically change the rules on them.