Sonoma State University’s stunning decision to eliminate all NCAA Division II athletics, alongside slashing 22 academic programs and dozens of faculty positions, is not just a budgetary maneuver—it’s a bellwether.
Faced with a $24 million deficit and a 38% enrollment drop over the past decade, university leaders made a call that feels both reactive and radical: strip the institution down to a career-focused core, leaving behind many of the experiences and disciplines that have long defined a university education. But perhaps what’s most sobering is that Sonoma State may not be an outlier for long.
In an era where the entire NCAA model is being reimagined—through legal settlements like House v. NCAA, rising athlete compensation, and unsustainable practices in elite college sports—Sonoma State’s decision represents the other end of the spectrum. Here, instead of expanding or commercializing, the response is retreat.
And it begs the question: what kind of future are we building for student-athletes and students alike?
The Human Cost of Financial Triage
Let’s be clear: the decision to cut athletics altogether is devastating. For athletes who came to Sonoma State with dreams of competing, for coaches who built careers nurturing talent, and for faculty whose programs—like theatre arts, women’s and gender studies, and environmental sciences—have deep cultural and educational value, the loss is incalculable. The blow is not only to opportunity, but to identity.
Students are suing, alleging fraud and procedural violations. Coaches and faculty are rallying. And interim President Emily Cutrer’s acknowledgment of the “human impact” of these cuts, while sincere, does little to soften the blow for those caught in the middle of this institutional reckoning.
A Symbol of Broader Systemic Failure
What’s happening at Sonoma State is not an isolated fiscal failure. It’s a symptom of a deeper dysfunction within American higher education—one that’s been accelerated by economic pressures, enrollment shifts, and a fractured approach to the role of athletics in the academic mission.
At the top of the pyramid, NCAA Division I schools are navigating their own transformation, with elite football programs ballooning into semi-professional empires and conversations growing around separating football from the rest of collegiate athletics entirely. Simultaneously, proposals like U.S. Soccer’s year-round college model show that reform—intentional, athlete-focused reform—is not only possible but increasingly necessary.
Sonoma State’s total elimination of athletics is a stark reminder of what happens when that reform doesn’t come soon enough. In contrast to the progressive vision behind the men’s two-semester soccer pilot, Sonoma’s cuts feel like a retreat from possibility—an austerity measure that sacrifices long-term community and cultural value for short-term solvency.
The Choice Ahead: Reform or Retreat
The lesson from Sonoma State isn’t simply that small programs are in danger—it’s that the entire model must evolve. For non-revenue sports, sustainability can no longer be an afterthought. Proposals like the U.S. Soccer pilot, which seek to align seasons with athlete development and professional standards, offer a template for future growth, not just survival.
But they also underscore a harsh truth: the window for proactive reform is closing. Institutions that fail to adapt in a meaningful, student-centered way will be forced to make decisions like Sonoma State’s. And when they do, it’s not just athletics that are lost—it’s identity, it’s tradition, it’s the soul of the institution.
Sonoma State may have made the decision that seemed fiscally responsible. But if we don't take it as a warning sign, more schools will follow—not because they want to, but because the system gave them no choice.
Now is the time for bold ideas and collaborative leadership, not silence. Because if we wait too long, we’ll look back and realize that while we debated, the foundation crumbled beneath us.
