← Explore · Kalshi · Market KXNCAABACKPAYWOMEN-29-29DEC31
Will women get a bigger share of NCAA settlement back pay before Jan 1, 2030?
A · Price & probability
The market prices this at 22.0%, down 2.5pt over 24h, on a 9.0¢ spread.
B · Liquidity & flow
Thin (score 5/100) — trade small; large orders will move the price. Order book leans 3% to the ask (sellers).
C · Momentum & volatility
RSI 39 (neutral); price is below its 7-day mean by 2.1σ — an unusually large move.
E · Time & structure
Resolves in 1168d 10h.
Price history
Probability timeline
Order-book depth
Cost to trade
Pro See what a live order would actually cost after walking the book, and the edge/EV/Kelly at that real price. Upgrade
Longshot tax — return by price bucket
This market's 20-35¢ bucket has returned -24% per $1, historically.
Other venues
Pro See the live Kalshi ↔ Polymarket gap, the after-fee combined cost of hedging both legs, and its history. Upgrade
How this settles
- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Supreme Court
- Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC, doing business as Verita Global (including the court-approved settlement website it administers)
- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
- Winston & Strawn LLP
- National Collegiate Athletic Association
- Associated Press
- Reuters
- Bloomberg
- ESPN
- CBS Sports
- Yahoo Sports
- USA Today
- The New York Times (including The Athletic)
- The Wall Street Journal
- Sportico
- Front Office Sports
- the Supreme Court of the United States
Summary
If a court order entered in House v. NCAA (In re College Athlete NIL Litigation) before Jan 1, 2030 allocates a greater share of the damages settlement funds in respect of participation on women's teams than the plan of allocation approved on June 6, 2025, then the market resolves to Yes.
Expanded rules
Only an order in this case that increases the share allocated to women's teams relative to all other teams counts, including an order approving a new plan of allocation or an amended settlement that adds funds for women's teams. An order granting only preliminary approval or approving only notice, a Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court ruling that only affirms, reverses, vacates or remands, a Title IX ruling in any other case, and a change confined to men's sports or confined to women's sports do not count. A larger share that results only from redistributing unclaimed funds or correcting claims under the same allocation method does not count. The order need not be final or beyond appeal; a later stay, reversal or modification does not change the outcome.