House v. NCAA lawsuit: Objector raises concerns around Sen. Ted Cruz's congressional bill that is expected to protect NCAA

The NCAA has relied on amateurism as the foundation of collegiate sports dating back to its emergence. The settlement for the House v. NCAA lawsuit could soon shake the landscape to its core. A lot is on the line for schools and athletes in the courtroom this week.

If Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California approves a multi-billion-dollar settlement of three different antitrust cases against the NCAA and college sports' power conferences, college athletes will be allowed to be paid directly by their universities. She gave preliminary approval to the settlement in October and held a hearing Monday.

Yahoo Sports' Ross Dellenger gave an update on the situation.

"Another objector is expressing concern over a potential Congressional bill that would further protect the NCAA by codifying settlement language," Dellenger wrote Monday on X. "The draft of Sen. Ted Cruz's latest bill has been cited a few times now."

The hearing began at 1 p.m. ET in Oakland, Calif.

What are the ramifications of the settlement on the NCAA?

College sports will shift before the institution's eyes if the settlement goes through.

"If approved, schools will be permitted to directly pay athletes through about $20.5 million in revenue sharing during the 2025-26 athletic year, and the amateurism model that has ruled college sports for more than a century will nearly cease to exist at the Division I level," The Athletic wrote.

"In addition, nearly $2.8 billion will be set aside as back-pay damages for athletes dating back to 2016 who did not have the opportunity to be compensated for their name, image and likeness (NIL)."

The revenue sharing would increase on an annual basis, with the number being calculated as 22% of Power 5 schools' average athletic revenue. The payments will not put a maximum on how much athletes can earn under the settlement, as they'll still be OK to sign independent sponsorship pacts and get NIL from approved third parties.

"Quite predictably, NIL became a recruiting tool and a de facto pay-for-play device, but with fans and donors, rather than the universities themselves, footing the bill for players to represent their schools through NIL collectives, organizations that fundraised with the intent to direct that money to a school’s athletes through NIL deals," The Athletic wrote.

Also, scholarship limits will be switched to roster limits, as schools can move around scholarship funds the way they'd like. This would possibly get rid of scholarships for walk-ons or partial-scholarship athletes.