I was listening to Field of 68 the other night. They mentioned something about “Revenue Sharing” starting next year I guess. I understand the concept of revenue sharing. Can someone explain to me how this will affect college sports? Will it level the NIL playing field between schools?
Revenue sharing
- Thread starter USARMYWILDCAT
- Start date
20.4 million per school to divide up.. Already a few lawsuits about title IX, or rumored lawsuits about making sure ladies sports get a share.
They should get a share when they make a profit IMO. The fact they exist is enough to me considering they bring no revenue.
I think it helps a little. That’s guaranteed money and the SEC brings in as much revenue as anyone so the checks they get will be a nice bonus or in some cases may pay end of the bench guys to stick around.
Hard truth nobody wants to hear. They generate zero revenue. Why should they get a share for NIL?
The reality is, the women’s game should be thankful that the men’s revenue funds the existence of their program and allows them an opportunity to get a 50-100k education for free + free rent and meals for 4-5 years + a monthly stipend.
With that said, the women’s game is a purer version of what NIL should be and was intended. Go be a Livvy Dune, Cavinder Twins etc. Their college athlete status gives them an immediate foundation, fanbase, validity to build a brand on social media and make 10s-100s of millions + major national brand endorsements in billion dollar industries such as clothing and makeup and supplements. Dunne and the Cavinders ranked at the top of NIL earners —-men or women
Not sure they necessarily need to make a profit, but they should only get a share of the actual revenue they bring in. It's too easy to make an entity look like they aren't making any money. I think that would be VERY little money anyway, but at least with that kind of structure you aren't likely to win a lawsuit based on the disparity of pay, at least that would be my guess IANAL.
Title nine is and always has been complete bull crap. If women truly want equality, they need to learn to earn their way in sports just like everyone else. Make a profit, and then you have something to say about it. There's no skin in the game for them.
For pro sports, I absolutely agree with your statement about no profit = no revenue sharing, etc.
For college sports, because they are still student athletes (I know they are paid, but they are still students), I don't really think making a profit should be the determining factor. Otherwise, the only college sports would be FBS level football and a handful of men's college basketball teams.
To me, college sports are a business expense, but I think there is value in college sports that is just bigger than the bottom line. Even still, each school must determine which sports it can and is willing to cover. So, every school can't have everything...that's where the bottom line for an athletics department does matter.
But loss of revenue for college sports isn't just a Title IX issue...NO sports make a profit other than P5 football teams and a FEW men's basketball teams.
Honest question - Do you think ALL college sports except those should be done away with?
And schools that don't have football get to put all the money towards their basketball program.
I agree with what other posters said, the women's programs don't bring in the same percentage revenue so they shouldn't get equal share. The whole point of NIL was having these players get paid because they make the university so much money with their "image" .. the women's programs are not making anything, probably a negative.
BUT, with that logic, football should get a heavier share of that 20 mil because football makes way more than basketball.
I agree with what other posters said, the women's programs don't bring in the same percentage revenue so they shouldn't get equal share. The whole point of NIL was having these players get paid because they make the university so much money with their "image" .. the women's programs are not making anything, probably a negative.
BUT, with that logic, football should get a heavier share of that 20 mil because football makes way more than basketball.
Very well said. Just because a college sport doesn't interest as much of the public doesn't mean it doesn't have merit or deserve to be properly funded.
You can't tell me college wrestling makes a profit, but that's where America's Olympic wrestlers jump from. Same with swimming, track and field, volleyball, and more. Hell, UK gave the US Sydney McLaughlin and Lexington gave us Tyson Gay.
Sports are more than the money they bring in. The minute we lose sight of that is the minute we forget why we even watch.
Now, PRO sports... totally different. Which is why I tire of the WNBA and US Women's soccer team whining about equal pay nonsense. Based on profit/loss, the WNBA shouldn't exist, and if what I've listened to/learned about USA Women's soccer is legit (and I have no reason to doubt it...but I haven't cared enough to fact check it), I hope they never win another game until they acknowledge the truth of how good their contracts are and stop whining about the men.
Anyone wanting to read up on how the NCAA Revenue Sharing will be implemented starting next school year visit the site below.
nil-ncaa.com
I think a lot of people are confused on how it works, the mandated guidelines for each school, and how the money gets distributed. This ruling basically makes the schools share the athletic department revenue they generate with their players across all of their sport (mens and womens) up to 20.5 million (capped) per year. The suggested number is 22% of the athletic department revenue. It incentivizes programs to fill all their scholarship spots in each sport as well from the way it reads.
NCAA Revenue Sharing & NIL Estimates 2025
nil-ncaa.com
I think a lot of people are confused on how it works, the mandated guidelines for each school, and how the money gets distributed. This ruling basically makes the schools share the athletic department revenue they generate with their players across all of their sport (mens and womens) up to 20.5 million (capped) per year. The suggested number is 22% of the athletic department revenue. It incentivizes programs to fill all their scholarship spots in each sport as well from the way it reads.
Really wish UK would go 5-10% higher percentage on basketball than anyone else. Seize the opportunity to get basketball back to the very top by a wide margin and worry about fixing the other stuff later. Basketball is and always will be the priority for the majority of fans.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD DO, with Barney at the helm, doubt that will happen.
No doubt. Football will never win anything of note. Nobody cares about meaningless bowl games anymore, where the star players sit out and 20% of your roster is already in the portal.
Title IX, what a joke. The fact that the NCAA allows men to compete in women’s sports should be the end of Title IX because in their minds what defines a man and a woman? Can’t wait til someone sues the 
out of them.
out of them.
Right now... There is no rules as to the split... The school is allowed to split the money how they see fit... And not every player on the team has to be given the same amount of money... Only thing they are waiting on is to see if Title IX will demand a split for men and women. Outside of that. Barnheart is allowed to spend the money as he sees fit. The link above, is a estimate of the revenue brought it.... Plus.. Any extra scholarships added, has to be deducted from that total as well... Men's basketball can now have 15, so 2 extra. So unless title IX says other wise. Barnheart can give 10mil to the football team and 5.5mil to the basketball team...then pope could give 5 mil to one players and split the 500k to the rest... As of right now.. There is zero allocation rules. And the schools, can opt in or out if they even want to participate.. Plus the $600 NIL clearing house goes into effect next year as well.... So anything outside $600 has to be approved, at a fair market value price... How that's determined I have no clue... Some schools are already pausing there 'School' sanctioned nil collectives..because donors are not seeing a ROI for the thousands.. If not millions they are putting into it... The whole NIL boom has a few more years till it falls on it face.
That’s why I said the fact they exist is enough, they get all the perks of a traditional college athlete and can make money off NIL like everyone else. If they have the market. We shouldn’t be sharing revenue with them to take away from the actual players who make the money.
They shouldn’t be done away with, but they don’t deserve a slice of the revenue to the players.
Exactly and I hope Angel Reese leads this sit out of the WNBA and I hope the NBA tells them to kick rocks but they won’t. They will give them the money because they are ran by Adam Silver who is itching to do something like that.
They won't have the football money to spend, vast majority of the revenue comes from football and TV deals. And not many basketball teams even make enough to support themselves... They can only spend 22% or up to 20.5 mil. They can't exceed the 22% rule.
I believe SJU reported about $50 million in revenue last year and UConn reported over $100 million. Those numbers will definitely give UConn a leg up.
Yeah revenue, I wanna know what they have to spend. For reference Kentucky was 16th in the nation at 160 million in revenue and growing every year. We also have one of the only profitable basketball schools in the nation on its own.