As more NBA teams continue sealing their places in the second round of the playoffs, the league appears to be getting closer to a win of its own—securing its next set of media deals and a substantial rights fee increase in the process.

Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery are currently paying the NBA rightly $2.7 billion combined annually to air games on ESPN and TNT, respectively. Nothing new has been officially agreed to or signed, but already, factoring in the reported values of potential deals on the table, the league can likely expect to at least double its intake. Disney is on track to renew for an average of roughly $2.6 billion per year, and NBC is prepared to bid $2.5 billion annually, according to The Wall Street Journal. WBD has the right to match a rival bid if it chooses, as does Disney.

Although no financial details of Amazon’s potential deal with the NBA have been reported, it’s safe to assume that the streamer would pay enough annually to get the league well over $5.4 billion, which would be double its current deals, and potentially closer to $6 billion, if not even more.

Trending Up

Such an increase for the NBA would be impressive, given the growing disruption in the current sports media landscape.

Earlier this year, the College Football Playoff struck an extension with ESPN that will be worth $1.3 billion a year beginning in the 2026–27 season. While that is more than double the $608 million that the network has been paying, the new deal is for 11 postseason games as part of an expanded 12-team playoff. That means four more game broadcasts than the seven (three playoff, four other New Year’s Six bowl games) that were included in ESPN’s CFP package.

Last fall, NASCAR struck new media-rights deals, expanding from two partners for its flagship Cup Series to four, similar to the NBA’s seemingly going from two to at least three. The $1.1 billion NASCAR will bring in annually, starting next year, is a 40% increase over its current deals.

With cord-cutting continuing to challenge the entire media industry, the profitability of streaming still something of an open question, and most major U.S. sports rights locked up for the next several years, the NBA rights negotiation has been widely seen as something of a litmus test on the health of the overall market. Thus far, it appears the league is showing its strength, and then some.

On Monday night, ESPN reported that parties were making progress with settlement negotiations in the House v. NCAA case over name, image, and likeness—which many in the industry consider to be the most immediate threat to the NCAA’s financial stability, given that the governing body and Power 5 conferences are facing around $5 billion in damages. Front Office Sports can confirm that multiple college industry leaders expected parties to settle. (The main attorney for plaintiffs, Jeffrey Kessler, declined to comment when reached by FOS; the NCAA did not respond to a request for comment.)

Employment Status Unresolved

A settlement could allow players to receive a cut of the billions of dollars generated by television revenue for the first time in NCAA history. But it wouldn’t address college sports’ biggest existential question: athlete employee status. The House case doesn’t deal with employee classification at all; even its revenue-sharing mandates would apply to athletes only in power conference schools. 

The case, first filed in 2020 by named plaintiff Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, among others, would facilitate revenue sharing in a creative way. The defendants in the case include the NCAA, as well as the Pac-12, ACC, SEC, Big Ten, and Big 12 conferences. It argues that NIL’s definition should be expanded in multiple directions, most notably to allow athletes to receive a cut of TV revenue that would be considered “broadcast NIL rights.” Judge Claudia Wilken, who also presided over major antitrust cases O’Bannon and Alston, certified three damage classes last fall, hence the multibillion-dollar damages price tag.

Revenue-Sharing Dilemma

A settlement would mandate back-pay to damage classes, as well as force Power 5 conferences into a revenue-sharing framework that could provide $20 million per school to athletes, according to ESPN. But the reforms would stop there. There’s a growing sentiment across the NCAA that rich schools should share revenue with athletes, but the belief isn’t completely altruistic. They hope to pay players but still call them amateurs—that allowing revenue sharing will placate reformers who have been pushing for athletes to be deemed employees. 

The panic around paying damages in the House case has put it at the forefront of industry leaders’ minds. But employment classification is the NCAA’s biggest bogeyman—the real death knell to its amateurism model. Employee status would force schools to not only pay players salaries but also provide employee-related benefits and make schools and the NCAA potentially liable for workers’ compensation (something it has specifically fought against for decades). It would also allow athletes to attempt to formally unionize and collectively bargain with schools, conferences, and the NCAA, just like pro athletes do with their leagues. 

Multiple cases in federal court and at the National Labor Relations Board are already progressing toward at least some group of NCAA athletes being deemed professionals. The Dartmouth men’s basketball team’s unionization effort has perhaps progressed the farthest.

As for long-term consequences, the House case pales in comparison.