The new language and replacing of the hazily defined “booster,” which has played a big role in the Indianapolis-based NCAA's rulebook for decades, is designed to better outline which sort of deals will come under scrutiny under the new rules.

In a news release, plaintiffs' attorney Steve Berman focused on how the settlement, and now the new language, restricts how much oversight the NCAA -- already sharply muzzled by a series of losses in court -- will have on NIL deals.

Three weeks after being asked to modify a $2.78 billion deal that would dramatically change college sports, attorneys redefined the word “booster” in the plan

The NCAA and plaintiff attorneys in the most significant antitrust case in college sports history have agreed to amended language in a settlement that the two parties hope will be approved by a federal judge as early as this week.

Under terms of the settlement, the biggest schools would have a pool of about $21.5 million in the first year to distribute to athletes via a revenue-sharing plan, but the athletes would still be able to cut name,