The long-awaited House v. NCAA is finally a realitypaving the way for universities to pay their athletes directly starting July 1.
There are a lot of things to consider on what could be the most important day in college sports history. How are the schools doing? will actually pay their athletes? Who will control this new world of revenue sharing? Will essential stability really come from a house rule that some have presented as a miracle solution?
In all of this, there are clearly winners and losers whose reality will be radically altered in this new post-House world.
Winner: Athletes from “income” sports
It won’t be exclusively football and men’s basketball athletes who benefit from the House rule, but they are certainly its biggest benefactors. These two sports have supported athletic departments for years, generating the majority of revenue and making no profit. Now schools will have to pay their top athletes huge amounts of money, on top of the zero money they can make elsewhere, which has already been a major windfall for many of them.
It’s amazing how far we’ve come in just the last decade, from struggles over tuition scholarships that are now relatively paltry to a world in which football and basketball players can and do earn millions.
Loser: Renegade boosters
The early years of NIL featured unique characters like Miami booster John Ruiz, who didn’t hesitate to spend big money to see their favorite teams win. Money has exploded in recent years, from the $20 million Ohio State team that won the national championship last season to the $40 million era as Indiana’s Curt Cignetti. told CBS Sports this spring. In theory, those days are over.
Yes, there is considerable skepticism in the industry as to how a clearinghouse called NIL Go will actually stand up to legal scrutiny and prevent boosters from using NIL solely as “pay to play,” but if it works, as the NCAA and Power Four conferences desperately hope, the days of spending $3 million on NIL defense will be over and will eliminate an advantage that schools with particularly well-heeled boosters have exploited over the course of the last four years.
One additional note here: Schools that can tap local businesses willing to spend real NIL money will have a big advantage if NIL is strictly monitored for “fair market value,” as the clearinghouse envisions. If your school’s campus is located in a lucrative metropolitan area, even better.
Winner: The Future of Collective Bargaining
Now that the concept of directly compensating athletes is a reality, it is appropriate to turn to collective bargaining, employment and unionization as the next big issue for college sports to address. There are organizations, including Athletes.org who have anticipated this moment and are ready to contribute to collective bargaining to help resolve many of the new issues that accompany approval of the House rules.
College athletes becoming employees are the nightmare of many college administrators, but there is enthusiasm for the idea of collective bargaining. including recently from University of Tennessee Chancellor Donde Plowman and AD Danny White. An impending affair, Johnson v. NCAAcould well decide that athletes should be considered employees. In the meantime, expect more ADs and other college sports leaders to come to the idea that collective bargaining might be the best hope for enforcing the rules and resolving sticky issues such as the current biannual free agency (transfer portal) that has deeply frustrated coaches like Georgia’s Kirby Smart.
Loser: amateurism
The nickname “student-athlete” has long been a fraud and part of the NCAA’s original sin, but its death is becoming official now that universities are able to pay their athletes directly starting July 1. It took a very, very long time and was the result of major lawsuits – O’Bannon, Alston and House, to name three – and state laws that were crafted for this big moment. It may not please all fans, but gone are the days when top athletes were only provided with room and board.
Winner: The Big Ten and SEC
The two richest conferences that will receive more money from College football The playoffs and their television rights deals relative to their fellow Power Four (ACC and Big 12) are well prepared for this new world of revenue sharing. This isn’t exactly a new development — those conferences were also doing pretty well under the old system — but it should solidify their reign over college athletics. And if we see any realignment or consolidation in the future, it will likely be due to a deep desire to participate in one of these two conferences to help pay for the growing expenses of revenue sharing.
Winner: Big East basketball
Much of the House rules will focus on football, but the Big East has prepared well to benefit from college basketball. We’ve already seen Big East schools gain an edge heading into the 2025-26 season, committing more revenue-sharing money to men’s basketball than many of their peers because they don’t have to worry about spending tens of millions on football.
‘He played us like a drum’: Inside Kevin Willard’s turbulent departure to Maryland
John Talty
In theory, at least, Big East schools could devote the entire $20.5 million salary cap just to basketball. Or, more realistically, spend $8-10 million while Big Ten and SEC schools are largely in the $2.5-$4 million range. There has been talk of some conferences attempting to impose sports-specific spending caps, but there is real skepticism about sports as a whole. Assuming that’s not the case, the Big East, just as its schools can find money without big football-focused television rights deals, could have a significant financial advantage in terms of revenue-sharing spending.
Loser: Group of five schools
For years, comments have been circulating about the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, but this phenomenon is only amplified with this regulation. It will be increasingly difficult for Group of Five schools — and even some smaller Power Four schools — to keep pace with larger schools if they fail to fully fund the $20.5 million cap, which will only increase in coming years. You’ll see schools partially funding some areas including football and basketball, but it could be in the range of $2-3 million for football when SEC and Big Ten schools spend between $13-16 million annually. There may still be David vs. Goliath upsets in football, as we saw last year (e.g., NIU vs. Notre Dame), and if the College Football Playoff format remains the same, the Group of Five school will still make the playoffs, but it will be harder than ever for these schools to compete at the highest levels.
Loser: unremunerative sports
Similar to the concerns of the Group of Five, Olympic sports at many universities face a difficult road ahead. When athletic departments now have to share revenue, it becomes harder to fund money-losing sports, which is anything other than football or basketball, with a few exceptions at different schools. Concretely, what does this look like? The doomsday option is to completely eliminate sports that some schools already play, with sports like tennis bringing in no revenue or television exposure.
Less aggressive but still effective measures could include cutting scholarships, refusing to give raises to coaches and even reducing free meals offered to each athlete. Athletic directors everywhere are looking for ways to cut expenses and non-revenue sports will be a popular place to look.
Winner: Billable Hours
As the saying goes, billable hours are unbeatable. This is certainly true with the rules of the House. The class action attorneys, led by Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman, are set to receive a whopping $484 million for their work in bringing the class action to a successful conclusion. Considerable amounts of money were also spent by the NCAA and House defendants to hire attorneys. And, of course, there will likely be more lawsuits to come – particularly from a Title IX perspective – once schools begin officially paying athletes. There has never been a better time to become a lawyer and pursue an interest in college sports.
