NCAA Settlement Fallout: Are Non-Revenue College Sports Facing Extinction?

The landscape of college athletics is undergoing a seismic shift. The recent NCAA settlement, a landmark agreement designed to compensate athletes for the use of their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), promises to inject billions of dollars into college sports. But while this move is hailed as a victory for athletes, a concerning question looms: Are non-revenue college sports facing extinction? With potential roster cuts and budget reallocations on the horizon, the future of these sports hangs in the balance.

The $2.8 Billion Earthquake: Understanding the NCAA Settlement

On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken approved a historic $2.8 billion settlement in the House v. NCAA case, resolving antitrust claims brought by current and former Division I athletes. This settlement marks a formal end to the NCAA’s long-standing “amateurism” model and introduces a new era of direct athlete compensation. Here’s a breakdown of the key changes:

Back Pay: Approximately $2.8 billion will be distributed to former college athletes who were unable to profit from their NIL before the NCAA’s 2021 policy change.
Revenue Sharing: Schools can now share up to $20.5 million annually with their athletes, a figure that is expected to increase by roughly 4% each year, reaching an estimated $32.9 million by 2034-35. This revenue can come from media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships.
Elimination of Scholarship Limits: The NCAA must eliminate scholarship caps, allowing schools to offer as many scholarships as they wish.
Roster Limits: To balance the increased costs, the settlement introduces roster limits for each sport, potentially reducing the number of athletes on many teams.
NIL Restrictions: The NCAA may continue to restrict NIL payments from school-associated boosters, but these restrictions are narrower than before.

The Uneven Playing Field: Revenue vs. Non-Revenue Sports

While the settlement aims to create a more equitable system, the reality is that college sports operate on an uneven playing field. Football and men’s basketball are the primary revenue generators for most athletic programs, subsidizing the costs of other sports, often referred to as “Olympic sports” or “non-revenue” sports.

Reports suggest that a significant portion of the revenue sharing, potentially up to 90%, will be directed towards football and men’s basketball programs. This leaves a much smaller slice of the pie for the remaining sports, raising concerns about their long-term viability.

The Axe Falls: Potential Cuts and Program Eliminations

The financial implications of the settlement are forcing athletic departments to make difficult choices. To fund revenue sharing and manage expenses, many schools may resort to cutting non-revenue sports, reducing roster sizes, and limiting scholarship opportunities.

Roster Caps Jeopardize Opportunities: The proposed settlement terms will take roster spots (and therefore the opportunity to earn scholarships and NIL compensation) from thousands of student-athletes in order to send checks principally to those playing football and basketball.
Programs at Risk: Universities have already begun dropping sports programs. UTEP dropped women’s tennis, Cal Poly discontinued swimming and diving, Marquette added women’s swimming, and Grand Canyon shuttered a historically dominant men’s volleyball program. Cal Poly said the House settlement will result “in a loss of at least $450,000 per year for our programs.”
Coaches Feeling the Pressure: Coaches are being told to “do more with less,” facing reduced funding, fewer roster spots, and increased uncertainty. Many are now being asked to supplement their programs through fundraising and community engagement.

Title IX Complications: A Looming Battle

The settlement’s impact on Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs, is another area of concern. Some argue that the settlement’s damages allocations favor male athletes, potentially violating Title IX.

Unequal Distribution of Funds: According to the terms of the final settlement, the damages are set to be distributed as follows: 90% to football and men’s basketball student-athletes at Power Five schools that competed between June 15, 2016, to September 15, 2024; 5% to women’s basketball student-athletes; and 5% to all remaining student-athletes.
Potential Lawsuits: Attorneys suggest that schools may see a potential wave of gender-equity lawsuits from student-athletes, including challenges over how that revenue is distributed.

A Call to Action: Protecting Non-Revenue Sports

The future of non-revenue college sports is uncertain, but there are steps that can be taken to mitigate the potential damage:

Advocacy: Coaches, athletes, alumni, and parents must advocate for the value of these programs and their importance to the university community.
Creative Fundraising: Olympic sports need to explore new revenue models, including foundations, booster clubs, and alumni collectives.
Collaboration: Olympic sports should work together to increase their collective bargaining power and coordinate fundraising efforts.
Embrace NIL: Help athletes in non-revenue sports succeed in the NIL era by training them to build their brands and monetize their expertise.
Equitable Distribution Models: Schools must ensure that the distribution of revenue-sharing funds complies with Title IX’s requirement of providing equal athletic opportunities for both genders.

Navigating the New Landscape: Legal Advice and Guidance

The NCAA settlement has created a complex legal and financial landscape for colleges and universities. Athletic departments must carefully navigate these changes to ensure compliance with Title IX, antitrust laws, and other regulations.

If you are an athlete, coach, or administrator affected by the NCAA settlement, it is crucial to seek legal advice to understand your rights and options. Contact our firm today for a consultation to discuss your situation and explore strategies for protecting your interests.