Are USC and UCLA athletes getting all the NIL compensation to which they’re entitled?
That’s the issue at the heart of a lawsuit filed this week — with USC freshman linebacker Talanoa Ili one of two lead plaintiffs — that challenges the House settlement’s restrictions on college athlete compensation.
The $2.8 billion House settlement with the NCAA in June 2025 called for a two-tiered payment system to athletes, through revenue sharing with universities and NIL compensation. Any NIL deals above $2,500 needed to go through a new College Sports Commission clearinghouse known as NIL Go to ensure they were legitimate and paying market rate.
Ili’s lawsuit claims that such an arrangement violates federal antitrust and state laws.
As part of the proposed class-action lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California Court, Ili and Stanford quarterback Charlie Mirer contend that the House settlement curtailed the ability of scores of football and men’s basketball players to maximize earnings opportunities in 17 states — including California — that prohibit restrictions on NIL opportunities.
The lawsuit names NCAA President Charlie Baker, the College Sports Commission and each of the Power Four conference commissioners as defendants, claiming they conspired to limit athlete earnings by capping revenue-sharing payments and prohibiting NIL benefits from athletic boosters and school-associated collectives.
Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a jury trial and treble damages — three times the amount of any proven damages — as well as a permanent injunction against earnings restrictions in states that prohibit them.
The complaint alleges that Ili’s earnings were restricted after he received “a substantial multi-year offer” from USC’s House of Victory collective in 2024 that led him to commit to the team. That offer was rescinded after the House settlement, presumably over vetting concerns related to NIL Go that would have barred any deals that amounted to pay for play.
Meanwhile, Mirer — the son of former NFL quarterback Rick Mirer — claims that he has not received any NIL collective compensation from Stanford since 2024 because of the settlement.
The case could face some major obstacles considering that part of the House settlement involved the surrender of antitrust claims on behalf of the college athletes.
California lawmakers have long sounded alarms about the House settlement’s impact on college athlete compensation in their state.
In December 2024 — six months before the formal adoption of the House settlement — California state Sens. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) and Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) were among a group of lawmakers who contended that state law should take precedence over any settlement agreement that would limit access to unfettered compensation.
Under the Fair Pay to Play Act of 2019, California became the first state to adopt NIL legislation that barred restrictions on NIL compensation. Sixteen other states followed suit.
The lawsuit contends that the defendants have thus unlawfully restrained free trade in the commercialization of athletes’ NIL rights in those states, “thereby suppressing athlete NIL compensation below the levels state laws entitled those athletes to receive.”
The College Sports Commission already faces other challenges to what has been widely viewed as an inflexible NIL clearinghouse system. According to Yahoo Sports, more than $125 million of promised NIL compensation was either under review or had been rejected.
