Recreation- or sport-related current event related to contract law

Revenue Sharing (The Future Contract Model): Beginning in the 2025-2026 academic year, the NCAA and its conferences are permitted to implement a revenue-sharing model. This allows colleges and universities to directly pay student-athletes a portion of their media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorship revenues, capped at an estimated $20.5 million per school annually.

End of Amateurism as a Contractual Restraint: The approval marks the end of the NCAA's power to enforce its historical amateurism model as a restriction on commerce and contracting. It essentially affirms the athletes' right to contract for compensation derived from their identity and labor.

Agreement with the Decision Rationale

I strongly agree with the judicial necessity of this decision (settlement approval), as the previous NCAA rules constituted an unlawful restraint of trade and violated fundamental principles of contract law and antitrust law.

Justification based on Contract Law Principles

Lack of Mutuality of Obligation/Unconscionability: The core principle of a valid contract is mutual assent and consideration. The prior NCAA model, which required athletes to sign a "Student-Athlete Statement" relinquishing their NIL rights as a condition of playing, was fundamentally imbalanced. The NCAA and the universities received immense commercial benefit (billions in media rights) from the athletes' labor and likeness, while the athletes received only a limited scholarship and benefits. This disparity points toward unconscionability—a contract term so grossly unfair or oppressive to one party that the court refuses to enforce it. The settlement forces the creation of a fairer bargain.

Antitrust Violation: The court's willingness to approve this settlement stemmed from the high likelihood that the NCAA's restrictions violated the Sherman Antitrust Act (as affirmed in the related Alston Supreme Court case). The NCAA was acting as a cartel or horizontal restraint by colluding with member schools to fix the price of the athletes' labor (NIL rights) at zero. Contract law cannot exist in a vacuum; contracts (or organizational rules that function as restrictive contracts) that illegally suppress competition are void as against public policy. The court's action mandates a new, competitive contractual market.

By approving the settlement, the court effectively acknowledged that the prior rules stifled the athletes' contractual capacity and economic freedom, validating the view that college sports is, at its highest level, a commercial enterprise requiring legal and economic parity for the key performers.

Sample Answer

Current Event: The NCAA NIL Settlement (House v. NCAA)

The case of House v. NCAA was a class-action antitrust lawsuit challenging the NCAA's amateurism rules, which for decades prohibited student-athletes from being compensated for the use of their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). This ban effectively restricted the athletes' ability to enter into commercial endorsement or sponsorship contracts.

The Court's Decision (Settlement Approval)

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ultimately granted final approval to a historic settlement in June 2025 (after preliminary approval in late 2024). The key components of the decision, which dictate the new contractual reality, include:

Back-Pay Damages: A total of approximately $2.8 billion was allocated to current and former student-athletes who played during the defined class period (starting around 2016) to compensate them for the economic opportunity they were denied under the previous restrictive rules.