The landscape of college sport is going to change, but what that change looks like has college coaches scrambling for answers, prospective college students uninformed, and misinformation traveling at fast rates.
College sports is a billion-dollar business making revenue from ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorships, broadcasting rights, and donations. Outside of colleges’ sport-specific budgets built to fund scholarships for athletes, team travel expenses, athletic trainings, and other sport perks, a portion of that revenue – legally – has never historically been directly allocated to athletes.
In a few months, athletes who choose to opt into a settlement of House vs the NCAA could see hundreds if not thousands of dollars in their bank accounts from the landmark antitrust suit. That money is backpay of up to $2.8 million to be paid to athletes who performed on NCAA Division I schools dating back to 2016.
Grant House is the leading named plaintiff. He is a professional swimmer and sports law student who competed for Arizona State University. As part of the settlement, it would support the creation of revenue sharing with “student-athletes.”
The $2.8 million in backpay is being split 60-40 with Division I conferences picking up the larger part of the tab. Of that 60 percent, 40 percent is being paid by the Power Five conferences (Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast Conference, and Southeastern Conference), and 20 percent paid by non-power conference schools.
The NCAA announced it would use its reserve funds to pay their 40 percent.
How did we get here? The NCAA is under immense pressure to pay up. The logic is that athletes are attracting dollars to the campuses where they play and that they deserve some of that cash when their name, image, and likeness (NIL) are being used – mostly on broadcasts.
The House settlement approval is expected to happen by April 2025. If the House settlement is given final approval, it is going to usher in a new set of rules.
In the House vs NCAA settlement, colleges and universities at all NCAA Division I schools can start to distribute up to $20.5 million in 2025-26. That cap amount is an estimated 22 percent of the average Power Five school’s revenues. The percentage will increase year-over-year, up to 30 percent in 10 years.
Schools are not required to participate.
This creates a long list of probing questions about fairness from what kind of effect portal transfers have on annual scholarship money that follows the athlete to what happens when coaching staff’s turnover to what are the tax realities and limitations of receiving direct revenue – how is it taxed?
Add in the new twist of the NCAA kicking around the idea of offering every athlete five years of eligibility, an option more widely known as redshirting for medical reasons or for a special exception, some non-revenue making Division I programs are, more than likely, based upon current proposed standards, doomed.
Division II and Division III programs could also see the five years of eligibility, if approved by the NCAA, and eventually a revenue-sharing formula, too.
Immediately following the 2024 Paris Olympics, where hundreds of current and former NCAA athletes represented Team USA, a handful of college coach associations in August collectively wrote a letter that really focused on the unintended consequences of the House settlement and other pending lawsuits with an appeal to celebrate Team USA’s success, while also working proactively to safeguard the system that underpins it.
As things currently stand, these lawsuits are still walking the line of renaming the college student-athlete distinction of amateur and changing it to “professional” status, meaning “employees.”
The possibility of college athletes being classified as employees (not the House case) could lead to salary and revenue targets, creating significant financial burdens. The coaches’ associations are not in full opposition to the House settlement. They are seeking the protection of broad-based sports and request congressional action.
Call for Congressional Action:
- Congress must protect collegiate Olympic sports to preserve the U.S. Olympic pipeline and avoid unintended consequences of current changes in college sports governance.
- A national framework is needed to safeguard Olympic sports programs, ensure academic opportunities for athletes, and maintain U.S. excellence in global competition.
- Collaboration with lawmakers is crucial to address these issues and sustain the success of U.S. Olympic efforts for future generations
One big potential change in the House settlement is the elimination of scholarship limits (12 right now for DI is max NCAA limit) being replaced by roster limits by sport. Field hockey is set at 27, meaning more scholarships could become available for DI (up to 27 full), but the money isn’t there to support it and schools can’t go above a roster size of 27 starting in August 2025 if the House settlement is approved.
Non-revenue athletic programs are going to see an overall decrease in revenue. There’s no way around it. Most college athletic programs are considered non-revenue sports, which include baseball, soccer, tennis, volleyball, track and field, golf, swimming, wrestling, and gymnastics.
Field hockey is a glowing example of a sport trapped in a shell game of uncertainty.
“Based on the changing landscape of DI and the uncertainty with the House vs. NCAA and other pending cases, DI is not adding sports overall like DII and DIII are right now,” Executive Director of the National Field Hockey Coaches Association Cate Clark told FAN. “The last DI program to add field hockey was Liberty over 10 years ago. DI had 95 programs in 1981; and we have 82 today. In 1981, DII had 42 programs and now we have 36, soon to be 38 in 2025. For DIII, the biggest growth has been experienced with 131 programs in 1981 and 164 programs today. DIII is where the sport has experienced the most growth at the collegiate level. In 2014 – ten years ago, there were 271 NCAA programs for all divisions. There are now 282, mostly DIII additions.”
Six Division II and Division III programs will be adding field hockey in 2025 and 2026. Additionally, 78 percent of Division I student-athletes are not basketball or football players.
Institutions are currently working toward budgeting for the backpay expense.
The NCAA currently distributes most of the funding for post-season championships (60% for DII and 75% for DIII). Any decrease in the current formulas would place an additional financial burden upon member schools to provide the current championship experience for their athletes.
Female Athlete News believes in supporting the student-athlete. That means offering them the best chance at an education that matches their needs, as well as cultivating a superior athlete that envelops a sense of privilege to play, lead, improve, and connect with teammates that have different socio-economic backgrounds from their own.
A radical paradigm shift is needed in college sports.
Is payday really worth more than playday?
Congressional Action:
The Protecting Student Athletes’ Economic Freedom Act of 2024 was voted out of the House Committee on Education and Workplace 23-16 in July 2024. It prevented student-athletes from becoming “employees.” A Congressional aide told FAN in order for the bill to be considered by Congress, it would have to be reintroduced this session. Committee members can be found by clicking this link.
By FAN – US
