South Dakota Reaches Settlement With NCAA Ahead of Antitrust Payout Approval

South Dakota and the NCAA have resolved their legal dispute just days before a critical federal court ruling on the NCAA’s proposed $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, a move that could have broad implications for collegiate athletics across the country.

The settlement, confirmed by South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley, marks the conclusion of a months-long legal battle over how the financial burden of the House, Carter, and Hubbard antitrust cases would be distributed among NCAA Division I institutions. According to Sportico, the NCAA has now agreed to reduce the financial hit to all D-I programs, including those not part of the Power Four conferences, by 33%.

South Dakota’s lawsuit, filed in September on behalf of the University of South Dakota (USD) and South Dakota State University (SDSU), challenged the NCAA’s plan to fund the landmark settlement by decreasing future revenue distributions to its members. The state contended that smaller programs like USD and SDSU would be disproportionately impacted, forfeiting a combined $8 million over the next decade—an amount South Dakota argued bore no relation to the NIL-related gains or legal risks tied to their athletes.

Per Sportico, the NCAA’s updated approach includes a $55 million contribution from a surplus in its national office budget, funds made available after exceeding fiscal targets. The association also reiterated its commitment to hosting championship events in South Dakota and preserving revenues tied to the newly formed Division I women’s basketball fund.

Related: South Dakota’s Lawsuit Against NCAA to Proceed in State Court

Previously, South Dakota had pursued a preliminary injunction to halt the NCAA from reducing distributions, with a hearing set for last Thursday. That proceeding was ultimately canceled after both sides reached a deal.

The dispute initially gained traction after a similar legal concern raised by Houston Christian University (HCU) failed in federal court last summer. Learning from that attempt, South Dakota pursued the matter in its state court, arguing the issue was contractual in nature and not subject to federal oversight. A federal judge agreed last month, remanding the case back to state jurisdiction.

In announcing the resolution, Jackley emphasized the dual benefits of the agreement: a tangible financial concession from the NCAA and the opportunity for South Dakota to collaborate with the association on future financial policies. “This settlement is a win for our universities and ensures that our athletes and programs are not unfairly penalized,” Jackley said in a public statement.

The NCAA, in its own release, maintained that South Dakota’s claims lacked legal merit, noting that internal financial decisions by membership organizations are typically insulated from court challenges. It further argued that the potential budget shortfalls cited by USD and SDSU—less than 5% of their respective athletic budgets—did not meet the standard for court-ordered intervention.

Source: Sportico