Georgia head football coach Kirby Smart has issued a strong warning regarding the potential consequences of the House settlement, raising serious concerns about its impact on the college football landscape—particularly the growing issue of tampering. As discussions surrounding the proposed antitrust settlement continue to stir debate across the NCAA, Smart’s remarks reflect a broader unease among coaches and athletic directors about the long-term implications of these changes.
The House v. NCAA case is a landmark antitrust lawsuit that challenges the NCAA’s restrictions on athlete compensation. If the proposed settlement goes through, it could lead to schools sharing revenue directly with players. While the move is being hailed by many as a step forward in athlete rights and compensation, Smart’s concerns center on the unintended consequences that could arise—particularly in terms of recruiting and player movement.
Smart, who has built Georgia into a powerhouse program with multiple national championships, emphasized that the new structure could exacerbate already rampant tampering issues. In recent years, the NCAA transfer portal and name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals have dramatically shifted the college football environment. With players now able to earn money and transfer more freely, some programs have reportedly used NIL opportunities to entice athletes away from other schools—often through back-channel communications that skirt the rules.
Speaking candidly, Smart suggested that if schools begin directly paying players through shared revenue, it could open the door to even more aggressive poaching tactics. “Tampering is already a major problem,” he said. “But if there’s a system in place where players know they can make significantly more money at another school, you’re going to see it escalate fast. It’ll be the Wild West out there.”
His warning resonates with other coaches who have expressed similar frustrations. Without strong oversight and regulation, the fear is that college football could devolve into a bidding war for top talent, undermining the concept of team development and long-term program building. Smart also pointed out that the schools with the deepest pockets would inevitably benefit, widening the competitive gap and reducing parity in the sport.
While Smart acknowledged that players should be compensated fairly for their contributions, he urged caution and thoughtful implementation of any new systems. “We’ve got to protect the integrity of the game,” he said. “We need guardrails. We need transparency. And we need to make sure this doesn’t turn into a free-for-all where tampering becomes the norm.”
The NCAA is currently navigating a complex legal and political environment, and the House settlement could set a precedent for how college athletics operate in the future. As influential voices like Smart’s raise alarms, it’s clear that the conversation is far from over. Balancing player rights with competitive fairness will be a delicate challenge, and how the NCAA addresses tampering and regulation will play a crucial role in shaping the next era of college football.
