How the House v. NCAA settlement could reshape athletic programs
The House v. NCAA settlement will dramatically benefit football and men’s basketball athletes—but for non-revenue sports, the future is far less certain. While schools may now allocate over $20 million annually to athletes beginning July 1, 2025, funding this compensation could come at the expense of program diversity.
Power Five institutions like Georgia, USC, and Michigan are well-equipped to absorb these costs through lucrative TV rights and sponsorship deals. In contrast, smaller schools—or even prominent ones with limited football revenue—may be forced to make hard choices. The $2.78 billion in backpay disproportionately favors revenue athletes, with 81% allocated to football and men’s basketball players (NCAA Financial Report, 2025).
Meanwhile, sports like swimming, track, and gymnastics—critical for Title IX compliance—depend on subsidies and donor support. Roster limits replacing scholarship caps pose a serious threat to these programs, especially as schools prioritize maximizing revenue-sport talent. This shift has already sparked protests from advocacy coalitions and athletes like Gracelyn Laudermilch, a high school swimmer who helped prompt the court’s phased rollout of roster changes as noted by the Athletic.
The implications are sobering: fewer walk-on opportunities, reduced team sizes, and possible elimination of sports that have long been staples of the collegiate model. Stanford’s 2020 decision to cut 11 varsity programs, only to reinstate them after backlash, is a cautionary tale that could repeat itself.
Mitch Barnhart invests in non-revenue sports at Kentucky
MItch Barnhart uses funds from football and basketball to help Kentucky have a robust athletic department: tennis, soccer, softball, baseball, gymanstics, track and field, swimming, cheer, dance, and more all get their funding from the bigger programs. Now that money is going to be harbored back into revenue sharing, what happens to these programs? No one knows a firm answer.
Still, some programs offer a model for sustainability. UCLA’s gymnastics team, which generates substantial donor support and national viewership, may be insulated from cuts. Athletes with Olympic potential or niche market appeal may still attract NIL offers, especially with the cap on individual earnings lifted. Nearly everyone knows who Livvy Dunne is, but what about all-around champ Jordan Bowers? There are groups out there that are lobbying for formal protections to preserve these sports amid the financial restructuring.
The broader question remains: Can the NCAA and its member schools create a system where both economic realism and athletic diversity can coexist? The next fiscal year will be telling.