Sydney Moore and Sabrina Ootsburg were surrounded by hundreds of college athletes at a convention in Charlotte when news broke that the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement had been approved by a federal judge. In a room full of college athletes, they felt like the only two people who understood the gravity of the situation.

“I’m about to get paid,” Moore said a Division I football player told her.

“Yes, you are about to get paid, and a lot of your women athlete friends are about to get cut,” she responded.

Moore acknowledged that her response might be a stretch, but while the sprawling House settlement clears the way for college athletes to get a share of revenue directly from their schools and provides a lucky few a shot at long-term financial stability, it raises concerns for others.

So what happens to the non-revenue-generating sports which, outside of football and men’s basketball, is pretty much all of them?

It’s a query that’s top of mind for Ootsburg as she enters her senior year at Belmont, where she competes on the track and field team.“My initial thought was, is this good or bad? What does this mean for me? How does this affect me? But more importantly, in the bigger picture, how does it affect athletes as a whole?” Ootsburg said.

“You look at the numbers where it says most of the revenue, up to 75% to 85%, will go toward football players. You understand it’s coming from the TV deals, but then it’s like, how does that affect you on the back end?” Ootsburg asked. “Let’s say $800K goes toward other athletes. Will they be able to afford other things like care, facilities, resources or even just snacks?”

Moore has similar concerns. She just completed her fifth and final year of eligibility at Syracuse University, where she was a key member of the volleyball team. Like Ootsburg, she’s become a pioneer in the NIL space and an advocate for college athletes, even though her on-court ventures are behind her.

Moore says most female athletes aren’t worried about how much — if any — money they’ll receive. They fear how changes could impact the student-athlete experience.

“A lot of us would much rather know that our resources and our experience as a student-athlete is going to stay the same, or possibly get better, rather than be given $3,000, but now I have to cover my meals, I have to pay for my insurance, I have to buy ankle braces because we don’t have any, and the athletic training room isn’t stocked,” Moore said.

One of the biggest problems, Ootsburg and Moore said, is that athletes aren’t familiar with the changes.

“Athletes do not know what’s happening,” Ootsburg said. “Talking to my teammates, it’s so new, and they see the headlines and they’re like, ‘OK, cool, but is someone going to explain this?’ because they can read it, but then there’s so many underlying factors that go into this.”

Jake Rimmel got a crash course on the settlement in the fall of 2024, when he said he was cut from the Virginia Tech cross-country team alongside several other walk-ons. The topic held up the House case for weeks as the judge basically forced schools to give athletes cut in anticipation of approval a chance to play — they have to earn the spot — without counting against roster limits.”

I just didn’t see anything about the roster limits, and that’s obviously my biggest concern,” Rimmel said.