In a significant development in the college sports world, three major antitrust class actions against the college sports system have reached settlements, signaling a potential end to years of legal turmoil. However, these settlements are merely the first step in addressing past violations, with concerns remaining about future antitrust issues.

The settlements, subject to court approval, will effectively bring an end to cases related to past and current violations within the college sports system. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize that these agreements do not provide immunity against potential future violations, as collective action by independent businesses may still lead to antitrust concerns.

One pressing issue that the settlements do not fully resolve is the matter of labor costs and the potential for future violations. Colleges and universities that profit from athletics face a choice between two paths: embracing a truly open labor market with no regulations across schools or seeking an antitrust exemption through a multi-employer bargaining unit.

Chris Peck, the president of the union directing the effort to unionize the Dartmouth men's basketball teams, emphasized the importance of collective bargaining in obtaining the sought-after antitrust exemptions. "NCAA member universities must follow the same antitrust labor laws as everyone else," Peck stated. "Only through collective bargaining should NCAA members get the antitrust exemptions they seek."

Another issue that remains unresolved is the ongoing Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) dilemma. The explosion of NIL rights for student-athletes arose from the realization by the NCAA three years ago that it could no longer prevent athletes from capitalizing on their own fame. However, if the NCAA imposes guidelines in an attempt to control the NIL landscape, this could potentially lead to fresh antitrust violations.

Addressing these challenges within the confines of current antitrust laws would require the creation of a large-scale, nationwide union, with negotiations conducted similar to an NFL-style collective bargaining agreement. This would result in players signing contracts, restricted movement among schools, spending limitations, and the implementation of rules aimed at preventing improper booster payments.

However, resolving these issues will not be a simple task. Differentiating legitimate endorsements from illicit payments will be a significant challenge. Moreover, the settlements of the antitrust cases do not provide a comprehensive fix for the college sports system. Instead, they serve as a stepping stone, highlighting the urgent need for a comprehensive solution that addresses future antitrust concerns while ensuring competitive balance.

Whether it takes the form of a Super League or an English soccer-style structure with tiers and promotion/relegation, colleges and universities must develop a strategy that resolves potential future antitrust issues. The recent settlements underscore the acknowledgement that a comprehensive solution is required to navigate the complex landscape of college sports and uphold the principles of fair competition.

While the settlements bring closure to past legal disputes in the college sports system, they also serve as a reminder that substantial reform is essential to ensure a sustainable and equitable future for student-athletes and the institutions they represent.