Likely Long Term Results of Revenue Sharing

[The-Hack]

(1) Coaches fattening contracts will level out, and possibly lessen over time. With massive revenue, and none going to players, eight-figure contracts were possible . . . hopefully the market adjusts before Kirby Smart retires.

(2) Far Fewer Taj Mahal type facilities. SEC and Big Ten schools, especially, have thrown billions into gold-plating facilities for five decades. The need for athletic “bling” should largely evaporate with revenue sharing, as will much of the excess funds used to finance the excess construction.

(3) A relatively greater cost for higher education for the non-athletic masses. Some Universities, including UK, had leveraged massive athletic budgets into construction costs for educational projects. That will likely go away.

(4) The Big Ten and SEC schools will improve their overall athletic performances relative to former PAC, ACC and G5 schools. With profits aplenty in the SEC and Big Ten to share, Stanford U will face greater competition for that annual Director’s Cup Award. Because of several cultural advantages, and a more even divide of investment across all sports, Stanford has dominated the Director’s Cup standings, winning 26 of them. Now, the Big Boys of the South and Mid-West can leverage their massive income advantages directly into player procurement, including golfers, tennis players and riflemen/women.

 

[Glenn's take]

Are they going to "share revenue"with every other sport not football that have no revenue and start charging those athletes to pay to play?

 

[The-Hack]

Are they going to "share revenue"with every other sport not football that have no revenue and start charging those athletes to pay to play?

Given that this will be market driven, and
has been derived from a brief period of NIL investments, I do not see Title Nine problems.

Caitland Clark made more NIL
than did the vast majority of collegiate athletes.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Given that this will be market driven, and
has been derived from a brief period of NIL investments, I do not see Title Nine problems.

Caitland Clark made more NIL
than did the vast majority of collegiate athletes.

I agree but we also know in the current climate that will not be the push. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[satcheluk]

Are they going to "share revenue"with every other sport not football that have no revenue and start charging those athletes to pay to play?

Producers will receive. Non-revs will likely not. Maybe the lawyers can chime in, but I suspect this is going to dramatically affect Title IX restrictions.

 

[3632]

Are they going to "share revenue"with every other sport not football that have no revenue and start charging those athletes to pay to play?

Nobody knows until we know but the scuttlebutt in the baseball world is that part of these discussions in this attempt to settle lawsuits the info coming out is that there may be no more partial scholarship sports. That every sport will have a roster size cap and the scholarship limit will be that roster number for every sport. No partial numbers. The baseball folks think it’s likely their rosters will be at 32-34 with full funding. Not all schools will have it fully scholarshipped but the roster size would be the max number. And the people reporting this are saying it would be this way across all sports.

 

[StubbornPenny]

I don’t see any reason a mid level school would keep any other sport besides football, maybe basketball, and whatever women’s sports that match the men’s scholarships. Why spread the money to a water polo team when you can keep more for the one or two sports that make revenue?

 

[hmt5000]

Producers will receive. Non-revs will likely not. Maybe the lawyers can chime in, but I suspect this is going to dramatically affect Title IX restrictions.

They may just make Football and basketball nonscholarship and then just reimburse the student for paying tuition. IDK that it would make a legal difference but it may. But lawyers can figure out ways to get around what seems like clear laws. LOL.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Courts will be settling TitleIX issues because there will be suits. As the parent of a female athlete I want her to have every opportunity a male has, but as the coach of a male sport I want my team to get the benefits of the revenue that sport produced.

 

[3632]

I don’t see any reason a mid level school would keep any other sport besides football, maybe basketball, and whatever women’s sports that match the men’s scholarships. Why spread the money to a water polo team when you can keep more for the one or two sports that make revenue?

They have to keep some of it. These tv packages give espn additional programming during what otherwise would be dead times of year. Are tons of people watching cbb? Probably not but some people do. And it’s at least some portion of the tv money even if small because providers just need some programming.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Producers will receive. Non-revs will likely not. Maybe the lawyers can chime in, but I suspect this is going to dramatically affect Title IX restrictions.

It's going to be interesting because those who create the revenue deserve it but title 9 forces equality. Does that follow through to any revenue sharing?

I'm going to guess courts will say yes. I know that perhaps isn't seen as fair but I don't think courts will be allowed to read the law as requiring equality in only some aspects. It requires it in all aspects.

If course equality tends to be a convenient term. Noone demanded equality when Caitlin Clark nor the twins at miami made a lot of money. But that's an nil issue and not a revenue sharing issue.

 

[satcheluk]

They may just make Football and basketball nonscholarship and then just reimburse the student for paying tuition. IDK that it would make a legal difference but it may. But lawyers can figure out ways to get around what seems like clear laws. LOL.

I've read some articles posting that eventuality. This is going to be fascinating to watch play out. Direct to school/athletic departments are likely to drop significantly, so their profitability should see dips, buoyed by an increase in TV revenue. Then you couple that with a revenue share agreement and the athletes likely becoming employees in order to be able to collectively bargain. Leagues will then put a salary cap on athlete compensation, so the teams that have the most non-school NIL will get the best players, but how will the CB enact guardrails on the collectives? They could outlaw them and only allow players to sign contracts directly with businesses? There are so many variables that end in wildly different scenarios that are possible. The social scientist in me is eager to watch this play out. I'm not sure what to compare this dramatic social change to. The Civil Rights Act comes to mind, but while that was a more serious issue addressed, this will affect many more people when you consider all stakeholders.

 

[satcheluk]

It's going to be interesting because those who create the revenue deserve it but title 9 forces equality. Does that follow through to any revenue sharing?

I'm going to guess courts will say yes. I know that perhaps isn't seen as fair but I don't think courts will be allowed to read the law as requiring equality in only some aspects. It requires it in all aspects.

If course equality tends to be a convenient term. Noone demanded equality when Caitlin Clark nor the twins at miami made a lot of money. But that's an nil issue and not a revenue sharing issue.

As was mentioned by another poster, I think football and maybe basketball are removed as scholarship sports. All teams will have a minimum salary for every player which will more than cover the cost of attendance, thus removing the sport from Title IX calculations. One, that would likely be challenged because, two, football scholarships are what force schools to make non-rev women's scholarships available. If you remove 85 male scholarships, some less progressive schools will likely cut women's sports to some degree. That would be a shame, but I would need to view the financials to make a value judgement.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

As was mentioned by another poster, I think football and maybe basketball are removed as scholarship sports. All teams will have a minimum salary for every player which will more than cover the cost of attendance, thus removing the sport from Title IX calculations. One, that would likely be challenged because, two, football scholarships are what force schools to make non-rev women's scholarships available. If you remove 85 male scholarships, some less progressive schools will likely cut women's sports to some degree. That would be a shame, but I would need to view the financials to make a value judgement.

That's how some schools approached the initial title 9 approach because iirc then it was only scholarships at issue. Since, it's gown vastly in application. So just the scholarship alteration alone wouldn't fix the perceived inequity in revenue sharing.

 

[truebluewildcat]

Would agree scholarships should be removed as well as athlete specific housing. The type of money some kids will be making, they'll be able to afford nice apartments.

Depending on all the semantics and legal language that will be coming out I will be curious to see how all this revenue is going to be shared.

It wouldn't surprise me if football at the highest level, BCS/Super conferences, separates and goes independent to avoid having to share an unfair amount of the pot they create.

That is going to be the big decision in all of this. What does football do? Do they stay put, or do they essentially break off and become a semi-professional entity separate from collegiate athletics and all the bean counting that comes with it?

I do think there will be some belt tightening outside of the 30-40ish big BCS/p5 programs. Top 6-8 programs in each P5 largely won't be affected because the money is so insane, and the pot is exponentially growing. The fan bases and general casual sports consuming mass appeal are big enough to support it.

Outside of those programs and on down into the lower divisions, I could see some real issues and unintended consequences coming down the pipe. Which may lead to a good chunk of Lower D1 and down, to opting out and proclaiming some sort of special exemption, to where they remain more closely to collegiate athletic model. Sure, players get some money, but not as much. Kind of like Ivy leagues don't do scholarships as well as the academic standards that they and a lot of other schools have that upper echelon big sports brand schools do not.

EKU almost axed their band a few years back. I think they scraped up some donations, not sure how it ended up or what the status is. That's where it will start. Bands, cheer, dance will be significantly if not completely shut down first. Then stories of golf, softball, gymnastics, soccer falling into disarray will start to creep into sports stories/special reports, etc...

 

[JHB4UK]

One good thing of this future? Players getting shared revenues can't duck out of bowl games, playoff games.

 

[Catfanlou]

If colleges allow the players to unionize I suspect the model will take into account how the other professional sports share the revenue between the owners and the players . I haven’t looked at this for a while but I think it is about 50 /50 . If so this would be a dramatic change for the schools . For instance if the currently are receiving 50 million in tv revenue that would be cut to 25 million with the players taking the other 25 million . Same for ticket sales, concessions etc.
Schools would save on tuition room and board but basically it would be a substantial hit to AD departments which are now bloated with overpaid coaches and too many assistants . They would have to take a small step back to the real world.

 

[The-Hack]

They would have to take a small step back to the real world.

And that is not entirely negative!

 

[The-Hack]

The Civil Rights Act comes to mind, but while that was a more serious issue addressed, this will affect many more people when you consider all stakeholders.

??

The Civil Rights Act affected every American not living in a very isolated place.

 

[satcheluk]

If colleges allow the players to unionize I suspect the model will take into account how the other professional sports share the revenue between the owners and the players . I haven’t looked at this for a while but I think it is about 50 /50 . If so this would be a dramatic change for the schools . For instance if the currently are receiving 50 million in tv revenue that would be cut to 25 million with the players taking the other 25 million . Same for ticket sales, concessions etc.
Schools would save on tuition room and board but basically it would be a substantial hit to AD departments which are now bloated with overpaid coaches and too many assistants . They would have to take a small step back to the real world.

If I was a coach, I'd try to lock in a long term extension now and maybe even do it for a lower amount than would be normal if I could get a few extra years because I suspect coaches salaries are likely going to dip, as this revenue is shared with the players. It wouldn't surprise me if Kirby's newly signed extension remains the highest football salary for the next 20+ years.

 

[satcheluk]

??

The Civil Rights Act affected every American not living in a very isolated place.

Maybe not most most cogent thought. I was referring to the 20mm or so black citizens in the US when the CRA was passed and saying that many more than 20mm would be affected by this when you consider everyone including fans. Of course one could argue the CRA affected more than just our black citizens, but enshrining their rights was the primary goal.