Delaware

Issue: The antitrust case that produced the $2.576 billion settlement, direct revenue sharing, and roster limits.

Where it stands: Final judgment entered June 6, 2025. Roughly a dozen appeals are consolidated in the Ninth Circuit, led by objectors arguing the back-damages formula — which sends over 90% of the fund to male football and basketball players — violates Title IX. The appeals paused distribution of the back-damages fund; go-forward revenue sharing was not stayed. Oral argument has been signaled for late 2026.

Issue: Whether the College Sports Commission may treat multimedia-rights companies and third-party brand sponsors as "associated entities," pulling the deals they arrange into NIL Go review.

Where it stands: Class counsel moved April 20, 2026 to enforce the settlement against the CSC. The Special Master denied that motion June 25, 2026 (Dkt. 1136), declining to exempt multimedia-rights companies and brand sponsors as a category. Plaintiffs objected and moved for reversal July 9, 2026 (Dkt. 1138); the NCAA opposed July 23, 2026 (Dkt. 1142), and the noticed August 13 hearing was vacated July 10, 2026 (Dkt. 1139). On August 4, 2026 Judge Wilken affirmed the Special Master's order, declining to declare categorically that multimedia-rights companies fall outside the entities the CSC may review — so they remain subject to review case by case, chiefly where the company both manages a school's intellectual-property rights and arranges deals for that school's athletes. The same order held that plaintiffs are entitled to request and receive documents about the CSC's investigations of multimedia-rights companies and third-party brand sponsors, so class counsel can test whether the CSC is in fact deciding associated-entity status case by case; disputes over that production go to Magistrate Judge Cousins, and the parties were directed to confer by August 18, 2026.

Issue: A class action attacking the revenue-share cap and the NIL Go clearinghouse as federal and state antitrust violations, and as conflicting with NIL statutes in roughly 17 states.

Where it stands: Filed June 9, 2026 by two college football players. The court set a briefing schedule on July 31, 2026; defendants' answer or motion to dismiss is due September 11, 2026. No ruling yet.

Issue: A damages case attacking pay-for-play restrictions more broadly than House, brought by athletes who stayed outside that settlement.

Where it stands: Survived dismissal and remains live. Discovery deadlines were extended by joint motion in May 2026, settlement mediation was set for June 24, 2026, and a substantial document production is due August 21, 2026. No trial date has been set.

Issue: A separate challenge to NIL compensation restrictions.

Where it stands: Dismissed December 15, 2025 on statute-of-limitations and settlement-preclusion grounds. Notice of appeal filed January 8, 2026; the appeal is pending.

Issue: Whether the NCAA may apply its new age-based eligibility rule to shut the high-school class of 2022 out of a fifth season.

Where it stands: Plaintiffs styled their motion as one for a temporary restraining order but pleaded a preliminary injunction in the alternative; on July 31, 2026 the court construed it as a preliminary-injunction motion and granted that relief outright, together with certification of a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) class of Division I athletes who began play in 2022–23, completed four years of eligibility under the old rules by the end of 2025–26, and are barred from a fifth season by the new rule. The court held eligibility rules are commercial under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and likely an unreasonable restraint, rejected the NCAA's argument that "exiting" one class of athletes expands output, found irreparable harm, and held the House settlement released nothing here because the rule was adopted after that settlement was finally approved. A clarification order issued August 2, 2026 sets the reach of the injunction: the NCAA is enjoined from prohibiting class members from competing in a fifth season "under the Rule … or any NCAA Bylaw," but the order does not enjoin the House settlement or its terms, does not enjoin transfer rules, does not enjoin roster caps, and does not stop a member school from making eligibility decisions based on whether an athlete was over twenty years old when they enrolled in 2022–23. Those four words — "or any NCAA Bylaw" — are now the fight. The NCAA moved to stay the injunction on August 2, 2026 (Dkt. 43), calling the order "egregiously wrong," and filed its notice of expedited appeal to the Tenth Circuit on August 3, 2026 (No. 26-1309). On August 10, 2026 Judge Sweeney denied that stay in full (Dkt. 56), rejecting the NCAA on all four Nken factors: it had made no strong showing of likely success — its stay motion "essentially rehashes arguments" already rejected and barely engaged the clear-error standard that governs the court's factual findings on appeal; it offered no evidence of irreparable harm to itself; its claim that the class faces only "minimal harm" the court answered with a one-word "Nonsense"; and the public interest lies in antitrust compliance. The order's framing is that the disruption the NCAA complains of is "a bind of its own making." The injunction therefore remains in force. The NCAA had already filed an emergency motion in the Tenth Circuit before the ruling (No. 26-1309, Dkt. 9), and on August 11, 2026 that court entered an expedited briefing schedule on whether to pause the injunction while the appeal proceeds. That is a scheduling order and nothing more: the Tenth Circuit has not ruled, and it has not entered an administrative stay, so the injunction is live while the stay motion is briefed. Reporting on the schedule indicates a ruling could land as early as the week of August 17, 2026. Separately, plaintiffs moved August 4, 2026 to enforce the injunction (Dkt. 46), arguing the NCAA is using transfer rules and transfer-related penalties to confine class members to a single buyer of their labor — the school they played for in 2025–26, which may have no roster spot left — and asking the court to require notice to schools and procedures for signing fifth-year athletes. The NCAA reads the four words narrowly, noting the same order says it does not enjoin transfer rules. That motion is fully briefed, and the court said it will rule in a forthcoming order.

Issue: Whether the scattered eligibility suits get centralized before one judge.

Where it stands: The NCAA moved August 1, 2026 to centralize the eligibility actions in the Middle District of Tennessee, where it says most named plaintiffs reside. The Panel docketed the motion as MDL No. 3198 and on August 5, 2026 set a briefing schedule: responses are due August 26, 2026 and the NCAA's reply September 2, 2026. Eight actions are named so far — Wisne, Morton, Fuller, Wiley, Zeigler, Pavia, Boyd and Patterson. Parties in Zeigler jointly moved to stay pending the Panel's decision, and the NCAA filed MDL notices in Patterson and Boyd in early August 2026.

Issue: Twenty-four basketball players excluded from a fifth season — pleaded as a state contract claim rather than antitrust.

Where it stands: Preliminary injunction entered July 9, 2026 barring the NCAA from enforcing Bylaw 12.6 and transfer-portal requirements against the plaintiffs, secured by a $200,000 bond. Judge Wagner then denied the NCAA's motion to stay his own injunction, writing that a stay was not warranted and that the NCAA "is subject to the results of its own decisions." The NCAA appealed to the Ohio First District Court of Appeals (No. C2600335). On August 11, 2026 that court held it does have jurisdiction over the appeal — rejecting the threshold challenge that would have ended it — but deferred any decision on the NCAA's motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. The NCAA has filed its opening appellate brief along with a reply pressing for a stay and for expedited briefing, argument and decision. Discovery continues below, and the injunction remains in force in the meantime.

Issue: Whether athletes can preliminarily enjoin the five-year and JUCO eligibility rules.

Where it stands: All three circuits reversed or vacated athlete injunctions. All three also held that eligibility rules are commercial and reachable under the Sherman Act — but require a full rule-of-reason analysis with real market evidence, not a "quick look." A Sixth Circuit appeal in Zeigler is pending.

Issue: Fifth-season claims under the four-seasons limit.

Where it stands: Patterson denied a preliminary injunction on January 15, 2026, holding the players showed harm to themselves but not to the market — and that the House cap and roster limits undercut their output theory. Plaintiffs filed renewed preliminary-injunction motions in July 2026 (Dkt. 107, 116), and on August 10, 2026 Chief Judge Campbell stayed the NCAA's deadline to respond to them pending further order, directing the parties to report on what the Tenth Circuit and the District of Colorado do in Wisne. Zeigler denied relief June 12, 2025; the appeal is pending, and on August 4, 2026 the Zeigler plaintiffs filed an amended complaint while the parties jointly moved to stay pending the MDL decision.

Issue: Individual and class challenges to the five-year rule, the JUCO-counting rule, and the new age-based model.

Where it stands: Results are split and moving weekly. Injunctions have issued in Blythe (Feb. 20, 2026), Kromah, Ondekane (July 1, 2026) and Washington (July 31, 2026); TROs and injunctions have been denied elsewhere, including Cruz, which was transferred to the Northern District of California in early August 2026 where the new judge denied an ex parte TRO and set a briefing schedule; the NCAA filed its opposition there August 9, 2026, and on August 11, 2026 the court stayed the case after both sides agreed a stay was warranted because Cruz falls inside the Wisne class. New complaints continue to be filed. Lorient was filed August 3, 2026. In Evans, an NC State defensive lineman denied a waiver sued August 7, 2026 in the Eastern District of North Carolina on Sherman Act, third-party-beneficiary and good-faith theories, and on August 10, 2026 Judge Louise W. Flanagan granted a temporary restraining order without notice and without bond, ordering the NCAA to treat him as immediately eligible for fourteen days through August 24, 2026 unless extended, with an administrative conference August 18 to set the preliminary-injunction schedule. Briefing also continues in Morton and Larry, where plaintiffs filed notice of the Wisne ruling as supplemental authority.

Issue: Whether Division I athletes can be employees entitled to minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Where it stands: The Third Circuit held on July 11, 2024 that athletes are not categorically barred from employee status and set a four-part economic-realities test, then remanded. The case remains pending in the district court.

Issue: Title IX and related claims over the NCAA's former transgender-participation policy.

Where it stands: Most claims were dismissed September 25, 2025. A narrow Title IX claim survived and is in targeted discovery on whether the NCAA is a recipient of federal financial assistance. Plaintiffs point to the Supreme Court's June 30, 2026 decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Issue: Failure to warn about and protect against the long-term effects of repetitive head trauma.

Where it stands: Hundreds of personal-injury and wrongful-death suits remain pending, with cases continuing to consolidate into the MDL. In Davis a Dallas County jury awarded $30 million compensatory damages on April 27, 2026 and $110 million punitive damages on May 4, 2026.

Issue: The ban on discussing NIL during recruiting, and the year-in-residence penalty on multi-time transfers.

Where it stands: In Tennessee — joined by New York, Florida, Virginia and the District of Columbia — the preliminary injunction was made permanent by consent judgment approved March 21, 2025. The NCAA may not enforce its NIL-recruiting ban and must publish proposed NIL rules at least 30 days before any vote for five years. In Ohio, brought by seven states, the court enjoined the multi-transfer eligibility rule and sharply criticized the NCAA's Rule of Restitution.