With NIL and revenue-sharing reshaping the financial foundation of college athletics, programs are finding themselves in uncharted territory. As discussed in a recent article on Oklahoma head coach Brent Venables taking a $1 million pay cut to support the Sooners’ NIL collective, schools are already making major sacrifices to keep pace in the SEC and beyond. But Venables’s decision highlights a much larger trend: athletic departments across the country are being forced to rethink where their money is coming from and where it is going.
For decades, schools invested heavily in facilities, coaching salaries, and non-revenue sports in order to build prestige and attract talent. Today, however, more and more of those funds are being redirected toward supporting revenue-sharing initiatives and NIL programs.[1] Athletic directors across the country are openly acknowledging that the “arms race” in facilities spending may slow down, with money once reserved for new stadium upgrades or locker room renovations now going directly into athlete compensation.[2] At the same time, schools are increasingly leaning on auxiliary revenues, student fees, and institutional subsidies to cover the growing costs of sharing revenue with athletes.[3]
The impact of this shift is already being felt. Smaller programs and non-revenue sports may face budget tightening or reduced travel schedules, while flagship sports like football and basketball become even more resource intensive. Administrators warn that unless new revenue streams are developed, through expanded media contracts, sponsorships, or donor contributions, departments may be forced to cut certain sports altogether.[4] In Florida, for example, lawmakers recently allowed public universities to redirect millions from auxiliary operations like housing and dining to help fund NIL efforts, emphasizing how broad these reallocations can become.[5]
The long-term question is whether this reshaping of financial priorities will create deeper divides between schools that can sustain these commitments and those that cannot. For major programs in the SEC and Big Ten, the flow of television money may keep them competitive.[6] For mid-tier schools, however, shifting resources away from traditional athletic support may strain their ability to maintain broad-based programs.[7] What is clear is that NIL and revenue-sharing have permanently altered the budgeting strategies of athletic departments, and schools are now in the process of redefining what success and sustainability look like in the new era of college sports.
[1] Inside Higher Ed – College Athletics Enters Uncharted Territory
[2] NCAA Division I Revenues & Expenses Report 2023
[3] AP News – New College Sports Financial Opportunities
[4] Human Kinetics – Revenue and Spending in College Sport
[5] AP News – Florida Universities Redirect Auxiliary Funds to NIL
[6] News Center Maine – College Sports & Revenue Sharing
[7] SF Chronicle – Stanford, Cal Face Revenue-Sharing Challenges
Law student at the University at Buffalo.
Leave a Reply