Did House v. NCAA Settlement Just Save—or Endanger—College Swimming & Diving?
With federal Judge Claudia Wilken approving the $2.8 billion agreement on June 6, 2025 (see “Judge Offically Approves Historic House Settlement” ), schools across the country are preparing to enter a new era of college sports.
While much of the focus has been on how football and basketball programs will manage revenue sharing and NIL reform, the changes are just as significant—if not more—for Olympic sports. That includes swimming, diving, and water polo.
So, what does this all mean for aquatics? The answer depends on how schools respond—and how fast they act.
What’s Changed? A Quick Breakdown
Under the terms of the settlement:
- Schools may now share up to $20.5 million/year in revenue with athletes, beginning July 1, 2025. This cap is expected to increase 4% annually
- Scholarship caps have been eliminated, replaced by sport-specific roster limits. For swimming and diving, the limit is currently set at 30 athletes per gender, while conferences like the SEC proposed even smaller caps
- A new national NIL clearinghouse will monitor third-party deals for fair market value and compliance
- Governance and enforcement shifts to a new Independent College Sports Commission, moving oversight beyond the NCAA
For Aquatic Sports, Some Relief—But Big Risks Remain
At first glance, the reforms give Olympic sports more flexibility than ever before. Roster-based limits mean schools could now fund every swimmer or diver on the team—not just those previously under strict scholarship counts.
Programs are no longer bound by the old caps and can choose how to allocate scholarships and resources.
In theory, that’s a win. The reality is more complicated.
Most Division I athletic departments are expected to direct 80–90% of their new revenue-sharing capacity toward football and basketball, leaving Olympic sports to fend for the remainder.
In the wake of budget pressures, several institutions are already making cuts. See recent coverage:
Roster Caps Incoming: Swimming Set for Tough Transition to New Era
UCLA Athletics Again Faces Hard Choices—Will History Repeat for Aquatic Sports?
Early Cuts Have Already Happened
Cal Poly, Grand Canyon, UTEP (tennis), and other schools have cited financial constraints and anticipated costs from the House settlement when discontinuing swimming and diving.
These decisions foreshadow the risk for mid-major programs with limited donor support or sponsorship options.
Despite these challenges, the current structure is arguably better than what existed before the settlement. Here’s how aquatics programs can not only survive—but thrive—in the post-settlement landscape:
1. Create Sport-Specific Excellence Funds
Swimming and Diving teams should launch their own targeted fundraising arms to underwrite scholarships, travel, and new revenue-sharing obligations.
2. Leverage NIL the Right Way
The newly formed clearinghouse brings transparency to NIL deals. This opens the door for swimwear, training gear, nutrition, and wellness brands to sponsor NCAA athletes with confidence.
Bundle NIL with digital content and signage to offer brands more value.
3. Use the LA28 Olympic Halo
Paris 2024 is in the rearview mirror, but the build-up to the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games is already driving momentum. Schools with Olympians, national team members, or Trials qualifiers should highlight those pathways in donor and sponsor conversations.
4. Coordinate with National Governing Bodies
USA Swimming, USA Diving, and USA Water Polo are invested in preserving the collegiate pipeline. Programs should explore co-funded grants or performance stipends in partnership with these NGBs to offset budget strain.
5. Prepare for Title IX Scrutiny
As departments reallocate budgets, they’ll need to maintain equity across men’s and women’s teams. Programs should ensure that any new funding model complies with Title IX and is documented accordingly before revenue-sharing begins on July 1.
Action Plan for Aquatics Leaders
| Step | Description |
|---|---|
| Assess Roster Compliance | Know how your current roster maps to the new caps—and make adjustments before July |
| Develop NIL Packages | Pre-price bundles by athlete tier (All-American, Conference Finalist, etc.) and prepare brands for new deal flow |
| Launch Donor Campaigns | Position aquatics as core to Olympic success and educational excellence—key to driving philanthropic support |
| Work with Conference Peers | Explore shared travel and neutral-site meets to lower costs |
| Tell Your Story | Publish content that highlights GPA, grad rates, Olympic ties, and NIL impact. Bring your value to life before budget reviews begin |
Final Word
Judge Wilken’s settlement didn’t solve every problem—but it did open a path. For swimming, diving, and water polo, the next decade will be defined not by legal rulings, but by leadership, fundraising, and creativity.
Programs that take bold action now—before the first checks go out—may find themselves not just surviving, but thriving in the new collegiate model.
Read more, or download our new SW App to stay informed!
- Federal Judge Delays House Settlement, Concerned With Roster Limits
- The College Sports Overhaul: A Timeline of the Transition to New Era
- How the House vs. NCAA Settlement Could Affect College Swimming
- Grant House Got Involved With NCAA Lawsuit to ‘Open Up The Doors,’ Not Deny Opportunities (VIDEOS)
- CSCAA Releases Open Letter On ‘Leading from the Front’ in College Athletics Scramble
- Could College Swimming Changes Lead to More Coaching Exits?
- ‘It’s a Scary Time’: Changing Landscape of College Sports Has Diving Programs on Edge
Is there anything in the settlement that motivates schools to keep, add, or expand their Olympic sport lineup? Figuring out how to fund or promote something schools don’t really want is wasted effort. It’s obvious why football and basketball programs are more important than Olympic i.e. non-revenue programs, so the question is, What is really preventing schools from just dropping them, especially now that they may be more expensive to operate?
The answer to the question is that this will be fantastic for a very limited number, probably less than 25, swimmers that can now be professional athletes competing for colleges.
This may be okay for swimmers that will now more or less be minor league athletes while attending school. Or it may not be. If you are an employee instead of a student-athlete, then your employer may have different priorities for you than your education.
This will be somewhat bad for the category of pretty good, but not great, college swimmers that were able to get a partial scholarship to help finance their education, but that won’t have this option.
This will be terrible for late bloomers, which are more likely to, but won’t exclusively, be men that were able to walk onto good programs and then develop into outstanding swimmers. This option won’t be available for them. I think that this category would include Rowdy Gaines.
This is going to be pretty bad for swimmers that are attending college primarily to learn something and need scholarship money to do that because they might have to transfer a couple times during their undergraduate years, which will really harm their academics.
This will end the career of walk on swimmers that now have the great experience of swimming in college and occasionally helping the team out while getting an education. It may also harm their education because most college athletes (with the exception of football and basketball players) do better academically in season because they are forced to organize their time better.