The landmark House v. NCAA settlement is set to dramatically change the financial structure of college sports, primarily benefiting high-revenue sports like football and basketball while raising concerns about unintended consequences for Olympic and lesser-funded sports. The $2.8 billion settlement allows athletes to receive compensation for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL), representing a major shift in the NCAA’s traditional stance against direct athlete compensation. Under this settlement, schools may allocate funds—up to approximately $22 million annually—to distribute among athletes, based on decisions made at the institution level.
This move, however, could have detrimental effects on sports that don't generate significant revenue, including those that traditionally feed into the U.S. Olympic system. Olympic sports advocates worry that funding shifts will prioritize football and basketball at the expense of other athletic programs, putting smaller sports such as swimming, gymnastics, and track and field at risk of being cut from athletic programs. Notably, about 75% of U.S. Olympians were previously college athletes, meaning collegiate sports play a crucial role in national athletic development. Without sufficient funding for Olympic sports, the talent pipeline for future Olympians could suffer, potentially harming the U.S. Olympic effort on an international level if roster cuts in less profitable sports continue to rise.
We have already seen programs cut significant numbers of athletes due to roster limits, and even high school students losing spots that were once offered due to the new rule change.
Another factor complicating the future for Olympic sports is Title IX, which requires gender equity in collegiate athletics. Compliance with Title IX under a pay-for-play model could lead schools to limit or eliminate programs that can no longer be funded proportionately. Adjustments, like enforcing higher roster caps on women’s sports to balance the large numbers of male athletes in football, may lead some institutions to abandon smaller men’s programs altogether.
The new financial structure also opens the door to further disparity among athletic departments. Power Five schools, which generate substantial income through television contracts and ticket sales, are more likely to sustain this revenue-sharing model. In contrast, smaller schools may struggle to meet these requirements, widening the gap between high- and low-resource institutions and creating an imbalance that could harm the overall competitiveness and diversity of collegiate sports.
In response to these challenges, NCAA officials and athletic directors are advocating for federal intervention to establish uniform policies across state lines and seek exemptions from certain antitrust laws, hoping to balance the need for athlete compensation with the sustainability of Olympic sports within college athletics.
In sum, while the House settlement signifies a milestone in athlete rights and compensation, it also introduces complex challenges, especially for Olympic sports. As the NCAA reshapes itself to include athlete compensation, the future for non-revenue sports may hinge on additional reforms to ensure they remain a viable part of collegiate athletics.
