ATHENS -- Collegiate athletics’ recent settlement was enough to satisfy a federal judge last week, but its entry into the political arena on Thursday was met with resistance.

RELATED: Understanding new college sports model

“The current patchwork of state laws makes it impossible to ensure fair competition or apply uniform standards across college sports,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said on a Monday Zoom call with the other power conference leaders.

“I think we’ve been clear over time, we need an effort to pre-empt state laws. Congress exists to set national standards ….”

Democratic members at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on college sports legislation that took place in Washington D.C. expressed lingering concern with athletes’ rights, per a Yahoo Sports report.

Ready for takeoff

As things stand, however, the new college sports model that emerged from the House vs. NCAA settlement last Friday is set to take effect on July 1.

Schools have until June 30 to sign a membership agreement overseen by the newly formed College Sports Commission (CSC) intended to, among other things, bring uniformity and provide “guard rails” for how programs can directly compensate athletes and allow for independent, third-party NIL deals.

The House vs. NCAA settlement terms allows programs to designate up to $20.5 million directly to athletes. It also stipulates for no scholarship limitations.

Roster restrictions are also a stipulation, but the settlement allows for current athletes to be exempt from those restrictions until their eligibility expires at their respective schools — at the schools’ discretion.

Athletes are also free to sign independent, third-party NIL deals in addition to the direct compensation they receive from the schools’ $20.5 million allotment.

Proposed deals will go through CSC’s “NIL-Go” online platform for approval. CSC will make its determinations with assistance from global third-party arbitrator Deloitte.

Lawsuits filed, more ahead

The new collegiate sports model goes into effect even with the knowledge that there is — and will be more — lawsuits challenging the validity of the terms and stipulations of the settlement.

Specifically, there are questions about the application of Title IX (enacted in 1972 to ensure equal opportunity for male and female athletes), and antitrust laws, which would challenge the concept of third-party NIL deals approval based on “fair-market value.”

RELATED: What settlement means for Georgia

Power conference commissioners had stressed on Monday the importance of congressional oversight, as several states have passed laws incongruent with some of the House vs. NCAA settlement terms.

“This is why congressional activity remains important on the areas included in this settlement,” Sankey said. “To support appropriate name, image and likeness activity and provide opportunity.”

Sankey said congressional oversight would help “provide clear boundaries that more effectively establish national standards for intercollegiate athletics while providing protections for its participants.”

Congressional challenge

Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti shared his optimism on Monday that the settlement would be met with more cooperation from congress than in past dealings.

“We’ve taken concrete steps to make significant change,” Petitti said. “I think that’s changed the tone down in D.C., because we’ve shown that we’re willing to make significant change and modernize our system.

“We’re not just asking for something, we’re actually showing that we are willing to make significant change.”

The current changes might not be enough, however, based on the Yahoo Sports report.

“I just want to get this straight,” said Lori Trahan, a Democrat U.S. House representative from Massachusetts and a former college volleyball player, “this committee is considering a bill that would constrain or roll back athlete rights, block further progress and give them little in return?”

The Democratic members, per the report, are not comfortable with the $20.5 million “cap” each school has designated to spend on athletes, nor does it like the idea that athletes can be deemed ineligible if their third-party NIL deals are not approved by the CSC’s NIL-Go clearinghouse.

“I have some concerns with the current iteration of this bill as well as some provisions of the settlement,” said Yvette Clarke, a Democrat representative from New York. “I am extremely hesitant to grant any kind of liability limit on antitrust exemptions at this stage given that antitrust lawsuits are the driving factor in bringing about this long overdue era of fair compensation for college athletes.”

Clarke, notably, suggested there needs to be “some kind of collective bargaining between college athletes and the NCAA and its member institutions.”

Progress over perfection

A bill remains in the works that would tend to the NCAA and power conferences requests to preempt state NIL laws, codify settlement terms and maintain that athletes be deemed students and not employees.

“They have a vested interest, and they want to do the right thing to help us move this forward,” Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark suggested on Monday’s Zoom call with the other commissioners.

“I don’t think we have to sell them on the topic. We just have to land at the right place that works for, you know, both parties on The Hill. And I think we’re getting closer.”

Perhaps, but as the power conference commissioners noted on Monday, there’s much left to be decided, and litigated, before the new sports model settles in.

“I often say it’s progress over perfection ….” Yormark said. “There will be challenges that we’ll deal with, but over time, we’ll meet those challenges and we’ll address them appropriately.”