The House Settlement and Lacrosse: What Changed in 2025 | RosterWise™

What the settlement actually did

The House settlement combined three federal antitrust cases — House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, and Carter v. NCAA — into a single resolution. Per USA Lacrosse magazine’s coverage of the June 6, 2025 approval, the settlement included approximately $2.8 billion in damages for former and current athletes who could not profit from name, image, and likeness during the previous decade, plus a forward-looking framework that allows participating schools to share revenue directly with athletes and replaces sport-specific scholarship limits with sport-specific roster caps.

The settlement’s structure for participating schools includes three core changes:

• Revenue sharing: Schools that opt into the settlement may share up to $20.5 million annually with student-athletes during the 2025-26 academic year, with the cap increasing approximately 4% per year over the 10-year settlement term.
• Scholarship limits eliminated: Sport-specific scholarship caps are removed at opt-in schools. Programs can offer scholarships to every athlete on the roster, up to the new roster cap.
• Roster caps introduced: Each sport has a new roster cap that participating schools must observe.

These changes took effect for the 2025-26 academic year.

The lacrosse-specific numbers

For lacrosse, the settlement’s specific changes are dramatic. Per USA Lacrosse magazine’s coverage of the settlement’s lacrosse implications:

Men’s NCAA Division I lacrosse:

• Previous scholarship limit: 12.6 (equivalency scholarships divisible among roster players)
• New scholarship limit: up to 48 (with the ability to award full or partial scholarships to every athlete on the roster)
• New roster cap: 48 players
• Average D1 men’s lacrosse roster in 2024: 52.7 players

Women’s NCAA Division I lacrosse:

• Previous scholarship limit: 12 (equivalency scholarships divisible among roster players)
• New scholarship limit: up to 38 (with the ability to award full or partial scholarships to every athlete on the roster)
• New roster cap: 38 players
• Average D1 women’s lacrosse roster in 2024: 34.7 players

To put the scholarship change in perspective: at an opt-in school, a men’s D1 lacrosse program that previously had to spread 12.6 equivalency scholarships across its entire roster could now potentially offer scholarships to all 48 roster players. The increase is not just an incremental change — it’s a structural transformation.

The numbers also include hard reality

The settlement’s roster cap creates a real tradeoff for lacrosse programs. Per USA Lacrosse magazine’s coverage, with the average 2024 D1 men’s lacrosse roster at 52.7 players and the new cap at 48, the typical men’s D1 program had to reduce its roster by approximately 4.7 players to comply with the new limit. Across all D1 men’s lacrosse programs, USA Lacrosse estimated that approximately 362 players overall lost the opportunity to compete at the Division I level as the new roster caps took effect.

The women’s side faced a different reality. The average 2024 D1 women’s lacrosse roster was 34.7 — below the new 38-player cap. Most women’s D1 programs were not forced to cut players to comply. Some programs that carried larger rosters did need to reduce, but the impact was less widespread than on the men’s side.

For families with athletes already rostered at D1 programs in 2024-25, the settlement included a one-time protection mechanism: Designated Student-Athletes (DSAs). Per USA Lacrosse magazine, schools could identify currently rostered athletes (or incoming 2025-26 freshmen) who would have been cut under the new roster limits and grandfather them in. DSAs do not count against the school’s roster cap during the remaining years of their eligibility. The DSA designation also remains with the student-athlete throughout their college career — meaning a DSA who transfers to another school continues to not count against the receiving school’s roster cap. This was a one-time exemption; it applies only to athletes identified as DSAs by the July 6, 2025 deadline.

Scholarship expansion versus roster reduction

The most important honest framing for families is this: the settlement simultaneously expanded scholarship opportunity and reduced roster opportunity in NCAA Division I men’s lacrosse. More players can now be on scholarship, but fewer players can be on the roster.

For women’s NCAA Division I lacrosse, the picture is more straightforwardly positive: roster impact was minimal, and scholarship potential expanded significantly. Per USA Lacrosse magazine’s coverage of head coach reactions, North Carolina head coach Jenny Levy described the settlement as a long-overdue opportunity to reward women’s lacrosse athletes the way other sports had been rewarding theirs, with North Carolina aiming to sustain 38 scholarships on the women’s side.

The Title IX framework also matters significantly. Schools must meet Title IX requirements for equitable allotment of scholarships across men’s and women’s athletics. With football allowed to increase by 20 scholarships under the settlement, women’s sports become eligible for matching scholarship increases to maintain Title IX compliance. Women’s lacrosse is one of the sports that may benefit from this dynamic.

Not every program will fund up to the cap

The most important piece of context that headlines often miss: the new roster caps are MAXIMUMS, not requirements. The settlement allows participating schools to award scholarships up to the cap, but it does not require any specific funding level. Whether a particular men’s D1 lacrosse program offers 48 scholarships, 25, or fewer depends entirely on that school’s budget, athletic department priorities, and program-specific decisions.

Per USA Lacrosse magazine’s coverage of head coach commentary, Maryland head coach John Tillman described the realistic distribution of program responses as falling into approximately five categories:

1. Programs that significantly increase scholarships — potentially funding 25 or more scholarships
2. Programs that continue to support what previously existed (around 12.6 for men’s, around 12 for women’s)
3. Programs that remain in Division I but reduce their scholarship funding below previous levels
4. Programs that drop scholarships entirely and move to a club model
5. Programs that drop lacrosse entirely

Veteran lacrosse coach Bill Tierney is quoted by USA Lacrosse magazine acknowledging the competitive implications: “Schools that decide to go big in lacrosse — Hopkins, maybe Northwestern women — they might do that. If they do, it’s going to make the separation even wider.”

The distribution of funding across programs will play out over multiple recruiting cycles. Families should not assume that “up to 48 scholarships” means any specific program will actually award 48.

What this means for recruiting families

For families navigating lacrosse recruiting in 2025-26 and beyond, the settlement creates several practical realities:

Scholarship math is now school-specific. The previous 12.6 / 12 framework was a uniform limit across all D1 programs. Today, scholarship reality varies dramatically from one school to another. The conversation a family has with one program about athletic aid may look completely different from the conversation with another program at the same competitive level. Families need to ask each program specifically: “How is your program funding scholarships under the new settlement framework?”

Roster math is now tighter, particularly for men. With the men’s D1 roster cap at 48 and previous averages near 53, men’s D1 programs are operating with less roster flexibility than before. Walk-on opportunities and developmental roster spots that previously existed may not exist now. For men’s recruits who would have been the 50th player on a 52-player roster, that spot may no longer be available at all.

Title IX is now more visible in scholarship math. With football scholarship limits expanding to 105 at opt-in schools, Title IX compliance requires matching scholarship growth on the women’s side. Women’s lacrosse may benefit from this dynamic at schools with large football programs.

The DSA exemption is finite. The one-time DSA designation only applied to athletes rostered before the settlement’s July 6, 2025 implementation. For recruits in the 2025-26 cycle and beyond, the new roster caps apply without grandfather protections.

Not all schools opted in. Schools that did not opt into the House settlement continue to operate under the previous NCAA framework. Per USA Lacrosse magazine, families should ask each school whether it has opted into the House settlement — the answer affects scholarship structure, roster limits, and revenue sharing eligibility.

The recruiting impact during the transition

Several effects of the settlement are already reshaping how recruiting works in lacrosse:

Transfer portal activity may increase. With tighter rosters at many programs and a one-time DSA mechanism that ties grandfather status to the player rather than the program, the transfer portal becomes a more frequent option for athletes who were rostered before the settlement.

Scholarship conversations begin earlier and matter more. Where previous D1 programs awarded equivalency scholarships averaging 60-70% of the cap value, future scholarships may be awarded more frequently as full scholarships at well-funded programs or smaller percentages at programs that did not increase their funding. Families should expect more variance — and ask more direct questions.

Roster construction may shift across class years. Programs operating under tighter caps may make different choices about how many recruits to bring in per year, and which class years to prioritize. Programs that previously carried 18-20 freshmen per year may carry smaller classes; programs that have to cut players may consolidate scholarship spending on a smaller number of recruits.

Walk-on opportunities may compress. The previous structure allowed programs to carry walk-ons beyond their scholarship roster. The new structure caps the entire roster, not just the scholarship roster — meaning some traditional walk-on spots may no longer exist at programs operating at the cap.

What hasn’t yet played out

Several aspects of the settlement’s impact on lacrosse are still developing:

How many programs will actually fund up to the cap. The first full recruiting cycle under the new framework is still unfolding. Specific scholarship distribution data across the men’s D1 and women’s lacrosse landscape will take additional recruiting cycles to crystallize.

What revenue sharing will look like for lacrosse athletes. Of the $20.5 million annual revenue-sharing cap per school, only a portion will flow to non-revenue sports. Per industry reporting on early settlement implementation, most schools that have publicly disclosed allocation plans direct the majority (typically around 75%) of revenue-sharing funds to football and men’s basketball. Lacrosse — like most non-revenue sports — is likely to receive a much smaller share.

How the broader landscape will evolve. Some programs may drop lacrosse entirely under the new financial pressure. Other programs may significantly increase funding to gain competitive separation. The eventual stable equilibrium across D1 men’s and women’s lacrosse will take several recruiting cycles to emerge.

D2, D3, NAIA, and NJCAA lacrosse

The House settlement primarily reshapes NCAA Division I. Other divisions have their own structures:

NCAA Division II: D2 schools may or may not opt into elements of the settlement. D2 men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse continue under D2-specific scholarship rules.

NCAA Division III: D3 schools do not award athletic scholarships under any framework. The House settlement does not change this for D3 lacrosse.

NAIA: The NAIA operates under its own framework and is not directly subject to the House settlement.

NJCAA: Junior college lacrosse continues under NJCAA rules.

For families considering programs across divisions, the structural changes from the House settlement primarily affect D1. Other divisions have not seen comparable scholarship or roster changes.

Common misconceptions about the settlement and lacrosse

Misconception: “All D1 men’s lacrosse programs now offer 48 scholarships.”

Reality: 48 is the maximum allowed at opt-in schools, not a requirement. Many programs will continue funding at previous levels or below. Families should ask each program directly about its scholarship funding.

Misconception: “Walk-on opportunities at D1 lacrosse are eliminated.”

Reality: Walk-on opportunities still exist at many D1 programs, but they’re now competing for the same total roster spots as scholarship players. Some programs that previously carried 50+ players now cap at 48.

Misconception: “The settlement means lacrosse recruits will all get full scholarships.”

Reality: The settlement allows programs to offer more scholarships to more athletes, but partial scholarships remain common in lacrosse (an equivalency sport historically). The mix of full and partial scholarships at a specific program depends entirely on that program’s funding choices.

Misconception: “My athlete was a walk-on at a D1 program before the settlement, so they’re protected as a DSA.”

Reality: DSA status applies only if the athlete was identified as a DSA by the July 6, 2025 deadline. Athletes who were rostered but not designated as DSAs by that date do not have grandfather protection.

Misconception: “Women’s D1 lacrosse benefited the most from the settlement.”

Reality: Women’s lacrosse did expand scholarship limits significantly (from 12 to 38), and avoided the roster reduction impact that hit men’s lacrosse. But “benefited the most” depends on the school. Programs that aggressively fund the new women’s lacrosse scholarship potential gain the most; programs that continue funding at 12 see no real change.

Every recruit’s journey is different

The House settlement reshaped the structural framework of NCAA Division I lacrosse. But how it plays out for any individual recruit depends entirely on the specific schools she or he is considering. Some recruits will benefit from dramatically expanded scholarship opportunities at well-funded programs. Some will find their preferred school operating at previous funding levels with little change. Some will discover that the program they wanted to walk on at no longer has the roster flexibility to add them. Use this guide as context to inform conversations with each program your athlete is considering — and ask direct, specific questions about scholarship funding and roster planning under the new framework. The headline numbers are real, but the program-by-program reality is what will actually shape your athlete’s experience.

The House settlement is still in active implementation. Specific program-level funding decisions continue to evolve. Families should verify current scholarship and roster information directly with each school’s coaching staff.