BATON ROUGE — LSU and other Power Four Conference schools may soon be able to directly pay their student-athletes as a complicated settlement involving the NCAA nears a decision.

If the agreement is approved, it could change the very structure of college sports.

After years of legal issues for the NCAA, including lawsuits from multiple former and current student athletes, sports attorney Fritz Metzinger says a proposed agreement in House v. NCAA could settle these suits.

“The settlement consists of two components. The first component is that former and current athletes are going to share $2.8 billion in a settlement payment to be paid over 10 years,” Metzinger said. “But the second component, which is what has garnered the lion's share of attention, is what has become known as this proposed revenue-sharing model.”

Under this model, if approved, schools in the SEC, BIG 10, BIG 12 and ACC would be able to share up to 22 percent of the Power Four annual athletic revenue with their student-athletes. This would be nearly $21 million per school for the upcoming academic year.

“In theory, LSU could pay that all to their star quarterback, or they could be divided equally amongst all their athletes, whether they're in revenue sports or their Olympic Sports,” Metzinger said.

These payments to athletes would be separate from funds athletes are already able to generate through Name, Image and Likeness agreements. However, the settlement would tighten rules surrounding NIL.

“The NCAA and the power conferences actually, in particular, have said that there's going to be a renewed emphasis on enforcing NIL and making sure that NIL payments remain true, NIL payments as opposed to pay for play,” Metzinger said. “And I think we're in a situation now where, even though pay for play, NIL, so that's paying NIL as an inducement to go to a school or stay at a certain school, even though that's against the rules, those rules haven't been enforced.”

The judge presiding over the case has already delayed approval of the settlement twice since April, expressing concerns over proposed roster limits.

Metzinger says that if the agreement is not approved, it could cause issues at some schools this year.

“The schools and conferences who have been anticipating this going into effect for about a year now. I've already offered or agreed to deals with players that are contingent on the settlements' approval, but these agreements apparently have already been made for athletes to earn a share of revenue in order to come for a certain school,” he said.

Metzinger noted that, even if the agreement is approved, there are still a few lingering questions.

“This settlement does not contemplate Title IX. Title IX is not a conference requirement or an NCAA requirement; it's a school requirement that schools provide equal opportunities to men’s and women's student athletes,” he said.

He said there are still differing answers as to whether equal opportunity is the same as sharing revenue equally.

“I think it remains an open question, legally,” Metzinger added.

While there is no deadline for the judge to make a final decision on House v. NCAA, the settlement says the revenue-sharing model would go into effect on July 1 if approved.