In both school sports and professional sports law, 2024 has been a turbulent year.
2025 should be no less action-packed, with five important conflicts to follow, including more NCAA legal issues, an ongoing battle between NASCAR and two groups, and Dearica Hamby’s situation against the Las Vegas Aces and WNBA.
1 ) The Legal Fight Against College People as People
The possible classification of D-1 school athletes as employees of their class, meeting, and the NCAA is the most important constitutional problem facing the sports market. The quality of that topic will genuinely alter the relation between athletes, colleges and the businesses that mate with them.
Big developments on this subject are likely to result in 2025, but don’t anticipate a decision to be reached for years. Recent political developments may also prompt revisions of constitutional methods. Most importantly, the election of Donald Trump as the 47th leader means there will be a new National Labor Relations Board public lawyers, whose present GC, Jennifer Abruzzo, is a strong advocate of D-1 school athletes as employees and having the right to organize. Additionally, the U.S. Senate’s recent decision to extend Lauren McFerran’s term ended on December 16 and who was thought to be likely to support school athletes as employees, may affect the way the parties involved decide.

There are three potentially lucrative situations where college players may be considered people. Two involve the NLRB and legal understanding of the National Labor Relations Act, a national law that helps employees at private companies to organize.
In accordance with the NLRB, Dartmouth College men’s basketball players were declared employees by regional director Laura Sacks earlier this year because they work for compensation ( including preferred admissions to elite universities, per diem, clothing, sneakers, etc. ). and the school has the authority to oversee that activity. The players then unionized in a vote to join the Service Employees International Union. Dartmouth asserts that the players are not employees because they are eligible for need-based aid like other Ivy League athletes who do not receive athletic scholarships. Dartmouth has submitted a review petition to the agency’s board.
The NLRB is also determining whether USC’s football and basketball teams are employees of their school, the Pac-12 and the NCAA. A decision will be made by administrative law judge Eleanor Laws, who will decide how the NLRA is understood, just like the Dartmouth case. The loser has the right to contest the decision, and probably will.

There’s also Johnson v. NCAA, where college athletes argue they are employees of their schools and the NCAA within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state laws that guarantee the right to minimum wage and, if applicable, overtime pay. The plaintiffs have had a good start to the case, which is before a federal court in Pennsylvania.
While each of these three issues is significant, the bigger picture regarding college athletes ‘ employment will ultimately determine who wins the debate.
Advocates stress colleges already employ full-time students in jobs, including work study positions and dining services roles. Colleges may negotiate collective agreements with student employee unions in some cases. Some student employees are compensated separately through financial aid and scholarships. College students performing labor on behalf of their school for an activity outside of course work, while under the control of the school and in exchange for pay ( which sounds like a job ), is neither new nor controversial.
Critics claim that amateur student-athletes should be valued for their tradition. Additionally, there are concerns that some colleges will sack sports teams or give college athletes club status as a result of the financial obligation to pay their salaries.
The topic also involves multiple federal and state laws. Although state labor laws, which vary widely, govern the employment and potential unionization of college athletes at public colleges, the NLRA governs the employment and unionization of college athletes at private colleges. The FLSA ensures minimum wage and overtime pay, which is essential for work study, including for students who work to sell tickets at games.
Keep in mind, if college athletes are deemed employees, they have likely been misclassified as non-employees for years. Colleges, conferences, and the NCAA may be required to pay sizable damages for unpaid wages and other back pay.
Another twist: Employee recognition and unionization of one team are untrue for other teams at a school, let alone in a conference or NCAA-wide. Unionization is an organic process, and while some college athletes and teams will pursue it, others won’t.

The NCAA has fought hard in Congress to pass legislation that would make college athletes the athletes they are not employees. The chances of passing legislation are uncertain. Even if a bill passed and Trump signed it into law, the statute could face immediate legal challenge on state law preemption and equal protection grounds.
In the end, the courts, possibly the Supreme Court of the United States, will decide whether an athlete is an employee. It’s possible that “everever” will occur until the late 2020s.
Odds are when I write this story a year from now for 2026, the subject of college athlete classification won’t be resolved. It will continue to be the most significant subject.
2 ) NCAA Settlement in House Faces Final Hurdle
The NCAA is on the verge of settling the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations. After receiving initial objections in October, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken could issue a final decision as early as April.
Together, these three cases present a serious threat to the NCAA and its affiliated institutions with numerous billions of dollars in damages and injunctive remedies that would overturn a lot of amateurism. NCAA president Charlie Baker, who took over last year, deserves praise for negotiating a deal that averts worst-case scenarios for the NCAA.
However, a settlement is a two-way street. The NCAA and its members have agreed to pay a significant price in terms of monetary payments and rule changes in order to persuade the plaintiffs ‘ attorneys to reach a deal. The NCAA and member institutions will be on the hook to pay about$ 2.8 billion over a 10-year period and colleges can elect to pay athletes for media rights, ticket sales sponsorships and NIL, subject to annual cap of about$ 21 million total.
Many in the college sports industry assume that Wilken will give final approval. They have hired general managers and retained consulting services to create programs in the pro-sports style. Those moves are designed to take advantage of the new world that is expected to arrive as early as this summer.

Although it makes sense to be ahead of the curve, those institutions should keep in mind Wilken will do what she believes is best and when she believes it is best. The 75-year-old federal judge, who has a lifetime appointment to the bench, is in charge of the college sports industry, which is powerful and wealthy. Wilken will consider objections that have been voiced, including by a group of current and prospective D-1 athletes.
Wilken might also wonder why three of the plaintiffs ‘ names ( Grant House, Sedona Prince, and Nya Harrison ) wrote her a letter urging her to support player recognition. Wilken might wonder if the players still think the settlement, which was negotiated by their attorneys, is acceptable given that what they want is a completely different entity. With a key hearing scheduled for April 7, 2025, Wilken will assess whether the settlement complies with the legal requirement that it is fair, reasonable and adequate to class members.
If Wilken isn’t convinced, she might suggest that the parties go back to the negotiation table and come up with a different plan. That could cause the settlement’s implementation to take place for another academic year or longer. She could even reject the settlement and send the three cases back to the litigation docket. Although that may seem unbelievable, judges have rejected settlements.
Application of the settlement could lead to legal challenges in areas that are not directly related to those discussed in House, Carter, and Hubbard, even in a worst-case scenario for the NCAA in which Wilken grants final approval. Title IX generally prohibits colleges from discriminating on the basis of sex and could become key given that male athletes are expected to take home more of the settlement’s proceeds. International athletes who are on student visas may also be subject to compliance concerns as a result of the settlement and its pay-features. Antitrust challenges to NCAA rules will continue, as the recent ruling for Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia demonstrated.

3 ) NASCAR and Michael Jordan Could Resolve their Lawsuit
The legal conflict between Michael Jordan and NASCAR appears to have been created for a final-grade law degree. The best basketball player in history takes on the world’s top stock car racing sanctioning body. The best versus the best. billionaire versus billionaire
Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing, both of which Jordan and Denny Hamlin co-own, currently hold the lead. They contend NASCAR and CEO Jim France use a monopoly over stock car racing to suppress teams ‘ economic opportunities. These two teams allegedly refused to sign charter agreements, which NASCAR claims reveal the lawsuit is concealing a poor business decision. 23XI Racing and Front Row obtained an injunction two weeks ago that will allow them to compete as charter teams without ( as charter teams are required to ) renounce their legal claims.
The case is hardly over. Kenneth D. Bell, the presiding judge, has urged him to remain calm and to examine the merits of the antitrust arguments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which may overturn Bell, is challenging the injunction.
The reality is this case seems primed for a settlement. It appears as though 23XI Racing and Front Row are trying to establish a rival league when they compete with other NASCAR charter teams. The issue is with the money and contract terms. While the two sides have excoriated each other and launched public recriminations that sound almost scripted for journalists to write about, their legal disagreement is far less dramatic. They are likely to come up with a solution and work together.
4 ) The NFL Sunday Ticket Appeal Grows Big
The NFL’s victory in the Sunday Ticket antitrust class action trial was shocking, not because the league won but how it won.
U.S. District Philip S. Gutierrez issued a ruling as a matter of law after a Los Angeles jury determined that the NFL had violated antitrust laws by pooling the 32 teams ‘ broadcasting rights for out-of-town fans. He concluded that the jury was unjustifiable. The NFL escaped the possibility of being ordered to pay as much as$ 14.1 billion to classes of more than 2.4 million residential subscribers and more than 48, 000 restaurants, bars and other commercial establishments that purchased Sunday Ticket anytime between 2011 to 2023.

However, the NFL now has to defend its decision at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The clerk of the Ninth Circuit court has already set a number of upcoming filing deadlines for the parties over the upcoming months. A three-judge panel will be named.
NFL teams ‘ combined out-of-town broadcasts into one service, the Sunday Ticket, which has cost viewers$ 479 on YouTube TV ( lower with discounts and more for restaurants and bars ) during the 2024 season. The plaintiffs contend that this arrangement is problematic because NFL teams are competing businesses, and pooling allegedly causes price increases. Instead of pooling their broadcasts into the Sunday Ticket, individual teams could broadcast their games to out-of-town fans in ways that ( allegedly ) cost those fans less and wouldn’t require them to buy access to games they don’t care about.
The NFL maintains that its arrangement is popular with fans and both complies with antitrust laws. The NFL features teams that broadcast their games for free to local fans, a pro-consumer position, unlike other major professional leagues. The league warns that if the Sunday Ticket is deemed illegal, the league would need to rethink its approach to broadcasting games. Out-of-town fans might lose access to their favorite teams in a world without the Sunday Ticket or pay more, according to the NFL.
In 2019, a three-judge panel overturned a trial court’s decision to dismiss the case, which was a different version of the Sunday Ticket case. Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta questioned whether the NFL’s pooling of broadcasts advances consumer interests since fans might prefer smaller and cheaper packages of games.
The Supreme Court of the United States, which in 2020 denied the NFL’s request for certiorari, may decide the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted at the time that antitrust laws “likely do not require that the NFL and its member teams compete against one another with respect to television rights.” To the extent at least four other justices feel similarly, the NFL could be well-positioned to ultimately prevail.

5 ) Dearica Hamby’s Lawsuit Could Change Sports Law History
Los Angeles Sparks forward Dearica Hamby’s employment retaliation lawsuit against the Las Vegas Aces and WNBA will be pivotal for the coming year. Hamby claims the Aces illegally traded her because she was pregnant, and that the WNBA illegally failed to adequately investigate her workplace allegations against the Aces and punished her by declining to extend a marketing agreement.
The Aces and the WNBA refute the accusations, with the WNBA also claiming to not be Hamby’s employer. The Aces and WNBA are Hamby’s key partners in the case, which could legally result in the WNBA being jointly held accountable for any wrongdoing.
The WNBA, which says it regulates but does not control player employment, points out that each team is individually owned, negotiates compensation with players, evaluates player performance and makes draft and trade decisions. Additionally, the league takes into account that players do not work for the league but rather for their team. The WNBA’s role, according to Hamby, is more widespread because it investigates and punishes teams for misconduct, negotiates a CBA that regulates the draft process, sets minimum and maximum salaries, and enforces player conduct laws.
Hamby’s case arrives at a time when joint employment is a critical factor in the potential recognition of college athletes as employees. Additionally, it raises significant issues regarding how women athletes are treated when it comes to childbirth and family planning.