NCAA Resets Rules on Student-Athlete Betting on Professional Sports

In a notable rebuke to the Division I Council’s recent policy push, NCAA Division I member schools have voted by a two-thirds majority to rescind a previously approved rule change that would have allowed student-athletes and athletics department staff to place wagers on professional sports. The proposal—introduced by the Council in October and scheduled to take effect on November 22, 2025—triggered swift and widespread backlash across the sports, media, and entertainment sectors. Following a 30-day review period, more than 240 Division I institutions voted to roll back the measure, reaffirming the NCAA’s longstanding prohibition on all forms of sports betting by student-athletes and athletics personnel.  

Recent Investigations Heightening Scrutiny

Critics of the proposed rule change warned that the measure carried significant risks for the integrity of both collegiate and professional competition. Opponents emphasized that permitting student-athletes to wager on the very professional leagues they hope to enter could create inherent conflicts of interest, particularly in light of their relationships with scouts, prospective teammates, and coaches. They also cautioned that access to privileged or insider information—whether obtained intentionally or inadvertently—could undermine competitive fairness and expose student-athletes to substantial legal, ethical, and compliance concerns.

In line with the integrity risks, the NCAA’s reversal comes in the wake of several high-profile scandals, which likely contributed to the NCAA’s decision. For example, just days after the NCAA’s proposal was announced in October, certain NBA players were charged in a federal gambling investigation for allegedly sharing inside information and manipulating their performance, and certain MLB players were charged on counts including wire fraud and conspiracy to influence sporting events. In the college game, the NCAA permanently revoked the eligibility of numerous Division I men’s basketball players for placing bets on their own games, sharing inside information, and manipulating performance to influence prop bets and has announced ongoing investigations against many more, involving allegations of wagering on their own contests, sharing non-public information, and attempting to influence game outcomes.

The membership vote reflects a recalibration by the NCAA, which appeared poised to capitalize on the expanding legalized sports-wagering market by relaxing its long-standing restrictions. But the recent wave of high-profile gambling investigations likely underscored the inherent risks of such a change. In effect, while the sports-betting industry continues its rapid growth, the NCAA has stepped back from a policy that might have opened the door to new revenue opportunities—pulling the proposal before it ever truly got off the sideline.

How the NCAA NIL Settlement Affects Higher Education Institutions

On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved the settlement agreement in House v. NCAAOliver v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. As higher education institutions determine how to implement the terms of the agreement, all should be cognizant of potential Title IX implications. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.

Houston Christian University Raises First Substantive Challenge to the House v. NCAA Settlement

Houston Christian University (“HCU”) recently moved to intervene in the potentially historic antitrust settlement between the NCAA and current and former college athletes. The proposed settlement involves the NCAA, conferences, and member schools paying $2.8 billion to college athletes to resolve alleged antitrust violations related to compensation to the athletes for their name, image, and likeness.  In addition, the NCAA and its Power Five conferences (the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference and Southeastern Conference) agreed to allow their student athletes to receive pay directly from the universities they compete for—a complete departure from the NCAA’s long-standing system of “amateurism.” The settlement agreement is pending approval by Judge Wilken in the Northern District of California where the cases are pending.

In its motion to intervene, HCU argues that its financial interests were not adequately represented during settlement negotiations. HCU argues that the settlement will unfairly “divert funds from academics to athletics” and will negatively impact all of its students.  HCU’s argument is consistent with the majority of the criticism facing the proposed settlement—that the Power Five conferences and NCAA were the only parties at the negotiating table while non-Power Five schools will be on the hook for some of the settlement proceeds. The current settlement proposal apportions the $2.8 billion as follows: 24% from the Power Five conferences, 10% from the Group of Five conferences, 13% from Football Championship Subdivision schools, and 12% from Division I schools without football programs). HCU and other potential interveners in the proposed settlement could result in Judge Wilken denying the proposed class settlement as currently structured.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress