The revenue-sharing model in college athletics has the potential to be a pivotal mechanism that supports the financial sustainability of athletic departments nationwide. At the core, most schools seem to be planning to distribute funds generated primarily from football and basketball programs—two sports that dominate the revenue landscape. While the specifics of revenue-sharing agreements vary by institution and conference, the lion’s share of these funds consistently funnel to football, with basketball typically taking up majority of the remainder.
This distribution is no accident. It reflects the marketing clout and financial impact of these programs driven by their massive viewership, sponsorship deals, and media rights agreements. In conferences like the SEC and Big Ten, football is the primary revenue engine, pulling in billions annually through broadcast deals, ticket sales, and merchandising. Basketball, especially in powerhouse conferences and programs like those of the ACC or Big East, holds a significant secondary role. The NCAA men’s basketball tournament (March Madness) alone generates over $1 billion annually, but this is dwarfed by the comprehensive revenue streams football provides.
Why Football Dominates Revenue Sharing
Football's outsized influence on revenue sharing is rooted in its unmatched marketability. The sheer scale of college football's following—spanning generations of fans, alumni, and regional loyalties—makes it a juggernaut. Its ability to command primetime television slots, multi-million-dollar sponsorships, and national brand partnerships ensures a steady and overwhelming flow of capital. Programs like Alabama and Georgia have leveraged their success on the field to grow their institutional profiles, attract high-paying donors, and boost overall university prestige.
Basketball, though smaller in financial scope, holds a unique space, particularly during March Madness. Programs like the University of Connecticut (UConn) have achieved basketball dynasties that draw national attention and fanfare. These successes, while not reaching football’s financial peaks, provide schools with invaluable visibility.
Texas Tech: A Case Study
Texas Tech University has outlined a revenue-sharing plan that allocates approximately 74% of its projected $20.5 million to football players, 17-18% to men's basketball, 2% to women's basketball, 1.9% to baseball, and smaller percentages to other sports. This distribution mirrors the revenue each sport generates, with football and men's basketball being the primary contributors. To accommodate this model, Texas Tech plans to maintain its current number of athletic scholarships and eliminate education-related Alston awards, redirecting those funds towards revenue sharing. This approach underscores the university's commitment to aligning athlete compensation with the financial success of their respective programs.
The Broader University Impact
The financial success of football and basketball programs has a ripple effect on universities as a whole. Research consistently shows that successful athletic programs lead to a surge in applications and enrollment, particularly from out-of-state students. This phenomenon, known as the "Flutie Effect", was first observed when Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie’s 1984 Hail Mary pass catapulted his school into the national spotlight. Since then, numerous schools have capitalized on their athletic achievements to attract students seeking a vibrant campus experience.
Programs like Alabama’s football team and UConn’s basketball team have done just that. Alabama’s dominance under head coach Nick Saban has not only brought in national championships but also significantly increased out-of-state applications. UConn’s basketball programs, with multiple national titles in both men’s and women’s basketball, have similarly elevated the university’s profile. These successes enable universities to charge full - or mostly full - tuition to out-of-state students, many of whom are drawn by the prestige and excitement of being part of such a culture.
Balancing the Model
While football and basketball dominate revenue-sharing, critics argue that this model disproportionately favors these programs over other sports. Non-revenue sports often struggle to secure funding, even as they provide opportunities for student-athletes and contribute to the university's mission. Balancing the financial needs of the entire athletic department with the realities of football and basketball's dominance remains a complex challenge.
Ultimately, the revenue-sharing model reflects market realities. The financial success of football and basketball programs ensures not only the sustainability of athletic departments but also the broader growth and reputation of universities. Schools that excel in these sports continue to reap rewards far beyond the playing field, shaping the landscape of higher education and collegiate athletics for years to come.
