NIL

Tax implications for universities and donors

Published

5 months ago

August 1, 2025

Three letters have already dramatically changed college sports: NIL (name, image, and likeness), referring to student–athletes’ attributes for which they now may be compensated under National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules.¹ However the biggest change may be right around the corner, with universities being allowed to pay student–athletes directly. These developments have significant implications for athletes, donors, and universities, especially when combined with the launch of the NCAA transfer portal, which enables student–athletes to transfer more easily from one school to another. This article summarizes these important changes and points out some of the yet–to–be–determined tax implications for universities and donors.

How did we get here? The background

NIL and contributions

On June 30, 2021, responding to legal developments, the NCAA released what was then described as an interim policy, in which the NCAA expressly recognized the legitimacy of student–athletes receiving NIL payments.² Under the policy, schools cannot make the NIL payments directly.³ To bring some control to the payments offered to athletes, university donors formed NIL collectives. Many of these collectives were organized to qualify as Sec. 501(c)(3) tax–exempt organizations. Recognizing that the purpose of these collectives is simply to pay student–athletes, i.e., the goal is private gain, the Chief Counsel of the IRS responded quickly and made it clear that NIL collectives do not qualify for tax–exempt status.⁴

For many donors, the disallowance of exempt status has significant financial implications. While donors may want to provide the cash necessary to lure elite athletes to a particular school, they also want the tax savings typically associated with university contributions. This concern must necessarily be on the radar of universities that want to motivate maximum contributions from donors. However, as it stands right now, donors can either make a tax–deductible donation to their favorite school or make a non–tax–deductible contribution to the NIL collective that will support their favorite sports programs.

Revenue sharing and paid student-athletes

In a recent development following a series of legal actions, e.g., House v. NCAA⁵and Carter v. NCAA,⁶ a settlement agreement was reached between the college sport stakeholders, including the NCAA, universities, and players, that will allow revenue sharing with student–athletes.⁷ The class–action lawsuits asserted various antitrust claims against the NCAA and major collegiate athletic conferences for forbidding student–athletes from receiving compensation. The lawsuits sought monetary damages on behalf of recent past college athletes and revenue sharing for current and future athletes.

The terms of the settlement, which, as of this writing, still needs a judge’s final approval, are quite detailed and extensive. However, there are several key components of it that are of particular interest.

First, the settlement does not include all member institutions equally. The NCAA has more than 1,000 member schools, and this agreement extends only to schools with Division I athletics, looking both back and forward.

Second, looking back, awards will be made primarily to football and basketball players in the “Power Five + 1” schools, those in the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac–12, Atlantic Coast, and Southeastern conferences and the University of Notre Dame.⁸ This sets the tone that schools and their sports will receive different levels of resources under this settlement. Further, the awards to prior athletes are described as covering 67.4% of estimated NIL damages and 31.6% of estimated damages for athletic services claims. This latter provision is particularly important, as it reflects the recognition that student–athletes should be paid for their services as athletes, directly contradicting their previously highly guarded status as amateurs.

Third, looking forward, the settlement greatly expands the payments to student–athletes over the next 10 years, with the NCAA expressly authorizing compensation payments based on revenue sharing. Specifically, every Division I school can pay its student–athletes an amount equivalent to 22% of the average athletic revenues of the Power Five schools, referred to as the “pool” amount. This translates to more than $20 million in available pool payments in year 1 of the 10–year injunction relief term. Additionally, the agreement provides that students can continue to receive third–party NIL payments and traditional scholarship awards. The settlement acknowledges that this agreement is revolutionary and that it greatly increases the compensation that universities may pay student–athletes.

The full consequence of this settlement has yet to be determined. For example, the question has been raised whether the agreement is consistent with Title IX because most of the financial benefits go to men’s football and basketball players.⁹

The focus here, however, is on taxation. This article next discusses how these recent changes affect the NIL collectives and the potential tax implications, for universities and donors, associated with paying student–athletes.

Professional student-athletes: Why should schools care?

The future of NIL collectives

The total funds held by the NIL collectives are quite dramatic, particularly considering the newness of these organizations. Ranking the top 50 football NIL collectives by school, as of the end of the 2022 season, the University of Memphis ranked 50th with $170 million. Forty–seven, 36, 22, and 14 football programs had bankrolled in excess of $200 million, $300 million, $400 million, and $500 million, respectively. The University of Oregon topped the list with $969 million.¹⁰

However, the annual payments these NIL collectives made to athletes are significantly less. Ohio State University has received much attention for its $20 million roster in 2024.¹¹ Moving forward with predictions for 2025, the University of Texas is expected to top the list of payments from NIL collectives, with a $22.2 million payroll, with Ohio State coming in second at $20.2 million, Louisiana State University third at $20.1 million, the University of Georgia fourth at $18.3 million, and Texas A&M University fifth at $17.2 million. Only the top 20 football programs are expected to have NIL collective payments in excess of $10 million.¹²

Comparing the schools’ NIL collective payrolls to the revenue–sharing pool seemingly presents an opportunity for many schools. Specifically, many smaller Division I schools may be able to eliminate or at least minimize their NIL collectives. Schools that expect to pay their athletes less than the $20 million–plus allowable pool amount can compensate their athletes directly. Without having to contribute funds to the collectives, donors may be able to go back to donating directly to the schools, providing alumni with much–appreciated tax savings, which may translate into greater donations.

For many of the larger schools, eliminating the NIL collectives may not be possible. The pool maximum applies to all Division I schools. Some of the larger schools are at or near the maximum amount when considering just the football team. However, these larger schools now effectively have two tools, the revenue–sharing pool and the collective’s NIL payments. In other words, schools may be able to increase the deduction opportunities for donors to fund the pool payroll while sharing the burden with third–party NILs. The settlement agreement expands the funding opportunities for the larger sports programs that have a substantial student–athlete payroll.

However, these developments raise some novel tax questions for universities and donors, as discussed next.

The future of tax-exempt college sports

The Internal Revenue Code recognizes education as an exempt function. But what about sports? One could argue that developing athletic ability contributes to the education of our youth. However, that argument has not been necessary for quite some time. Since 1976, Sec. 501(c)(3) has provided that exempt activities include “educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition.” Therefore, on their own merits, college sports programs are exempt from tax because they foster amateur sports competition.

With the implementation of the settlement pool system, many schools will still have unpaid student–athletes, i.e., amateurs. This should include all those schools outside the settlement, i.e., non—Division I schools and Division I schools that decide to not compensate their athletes. The pool payments are not mandatory. As things stand now, these programs would remain tax–exempt as supporters of amateur sports.

However, many schools will embrace the pool payroll allowance and will compensate their athletes following the final approval of the settlement. This then generates the following question:

What happens when student-athletes are paid to play college sports?

With paid student–athletes, practitioners must evaluate each sports program and consider whether its income is at risk of classification as unrelated business taxable income (UBTI). UBTI is income from a regularly operated trade or business activity that is unrelated to the organization’s charitable function.¹³ Both public and private schools are subject to federal income tax on their UBTI. The taxing of UBTI is effectively a compromise for those organizations that have both exempt and nonexempt functions. Rather than their being fully tax–exempt or fully subject to tax, the taxation of just the UBTI preserves the organization’s exempt status while taxing only the nonexempt activity.

Following the settlement, there are two possible paths forward for those sports programs with paid student–athletes: Either the program will remain tax–exempt because of its connection to the school’s educational mission, or some portion of the sports program will be identified as generating UBTI. In the latter case, tax practitioners would face a tremendous burden, tasked with the responsibility of identifying those expenses that are directly related to the UBTI to determine the annual tax burden. There are some critical issues that practitioners should consider when evaluating which, if any, college sports programs will be classified as generating UBTI.

One such issue is that if all the athletes in a particular sports program are paid, then the program should no longer be labeled as amateur sports. These athletes are effectively professional, minor–league athletes. Since the program no longer supports amateur sports competition, practitioners should consider whether the program in question will be classified as generating UBTI. Without supporting amateur sports, this issue will largely depend on whether the perceived purpose of the sports program is “not substantially related … to the exercise or performance by such organization of its charitable, educational, or other purpose or function constituting the basis for its exemption under section 501.”¹⁴

Prior to 1976, Sec. 501(c)(3) did not include amateur sports in its listing of exempt functions.¹⁵ In other words, prior to 1976, college sports were exempt from taxation based on their association with the universities, supporting their educational mission. Therefore, there is some history to support the proposition that college sports should remain tax–exempt even if student–athletes are paid. After all, universities pay professors, coaches, trainers, tutors, and so forth. Could it really be that the tax–exempt status of all college sports depends on one group of individuals remaining unpaid — the student–athletes? Considering the pre–1976 historical tax–exemption, college sports programs may remain tax–exempt even with all paid athletes. However, unless Congress adds some new language to Sec. 501(c)(3) to clearly define college athletics as an exempt activity, there is some uncertainty that all college athletics will remain fully tax–exempt.

Second, if at least some student–athletes on a team do not receive compensation, does the program “foster … amateur sports competition”? Would it matter if there were only a few paid athletes or only a few amateurs? What if a team with paid student–athletes plays a team with all amateurs? These questions may seem absurd, but the current statutory language may make them relevant to tax–exempt status. Again, without some statutory clarification, schools face uncertainty in determining exempt versus UBTI classification as they implement the settlement’s 10–year pool compensation.

Third, perhaps the greatest risk factor for UBTI classification is the elephant in the room, the money. College sports is big business, much more so than before 1976. For 2023, the Power Five conferences brought in $3.55 billion in revenue.¹⁶ Following the success of the now 12–team College Football Playoff, it is not unreasonable to expect that broadcast and merchandising revenue will remain strong.

However, generating revenue does not mean that the program is generating profit for the university. The NCAA has examined the profitability of sports programs.¹⁷ In 2022, only 28 Division I athletic programs generated more revenues than expenses. More than 320 programs required student fees or institutional help to cover the gap between revenues and expenses. In 2022, schools generated $8.4 million in median revenue, with $30.3 million in median athletic expenses. The compensation of coaches accounted for roughly 20% of total expenses. In 2024, Kirby Smart, the head football coach of the University of Georgia, received a salary of more than $13 million. The 12 highest–paid coaches all received at least $9 million each.¹⁸ For the last few years, the composition of expenses has remained relatively consistent at roughly 20% for coaches, 17% for administration, 17% for facilities, 28% for a variety of other expenses, and 18% going to cover student aid.

Looking at these big–picture numbers, college sports look to be a financial negative for most schools. The compensation paid to the athletes out of the pool should be an expense for that particular sport, further increasing the loss. However, these broad numbers do not tell the whole story. College athletics consist of many sports programs, some more popular than others. Perhaps some are included to satisfy Title IX nondiscrimination provisions. The Service may flag for UBTI just one particular sport or perhaps even just the broadcasting deals. If that is the case, lawyers and accountants would almost certainly get involved. UBTI is not a gross receipts tax but is a tax on the net UBTI after deducting those expenses that are directly related to the revenue in question. In addition to this being an accounting burden, with many expenses shared among various programs, this may put some of those less–popular athletics at risk if schools are burdened with greater accounting and tax expenses, along with the new student–athlete pool payroll distributions.

Planning considerations

Small Division I programs may have the most flexibility moving forward. They could embrace the new pool compensation rules, thereby eliminating or greatly reducing their reliance on the NIL collectives, which do not provide tax–deductible contribution opportunities for donors. UBTI classification may be of little concern since many programs probably do lose money, even before the pool payouts begin. Alternatively, if compensating athletes does trigger UBTI concerns, without the same pressure as the larger schools, the smaller schools can opt out of pool compensation altogether. They can continue to rely on traditional scholarship awards and supplemental third–party NIL payments to support their programs.

Larger, highly competitive Division I programs now have two ways to support their student–athletes, beyond traditional scholarship support. To remain competitive, the larger programs can compensate their players directly within the pool payroll allowance and supplement these awards with the already substantial balances held by the NIL collectives. Even if the NIL collectives continue to provide much–needed support, this does open the opportunity for schools to seek more direct, tax–deductible contributions to the universities to fund the pool payroll requirements. Regardless of UBTI concerns, the power schools will need to raise the capital to compensate their players and address all accounting and tax requirements that result.

Since the implementation of NIL payments, the taxation of college sports has been anything but certain. The NCAA, the collectives, and university advisers have clearly expressed that NIL payments from the collectives are in no way for performance. All parties have walked a very fine line working very hard to avoid a “pay–for–play” determination. Until the settlement, they seemingly managed to keep the amateur status of student–athletes intact.

Then suddenly, it’s OK to pay student–athletes. At this stage, we do not know what this means for the taxation of sports programs, in general and specifically for UBTI.¹⁹ Rather than having the courts slowly work through the issues generated by NIL and pool payments, Congress could provide legislative clarification. Specifically, Congress could again amend the statutory definition of exempt activities to either include or exclude college athletics in this funding environment. With clarification, less time and money may be spent on resolving the yet unanswered questions. Statutory clarification would provide some consistency, i.e., lessen the risk of different judges reaching different conclusions and help practitioners guide both universities and donors through planning and compliance responsibilities. Until then, practitioners must continue to keep abreast of developments and understand which issues remain uncertain.

Footnotes

¹ Crowley, “Name, Image, Liability,” Journal of Accountancy (March 30, 2023).

²“NCAA Adopts Interim Name, Image and Likeness Policy,” NCAA (June 30, 2021).

³Coello, “What Is NIL in College Sports? How Do Athlete Deals Work?,” ESPN (March 24, 2025).

⁴Chief Counsel Advice AM 2023-004.

⁵House v. NCAA, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal. 6/15/20) (complaint filed).

⁶Carter v. NCAA, No. 3:23-cv-06325-RS (N.D. Cal. 12/7/23) (complaint filed).

⁷In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal. 7/26/24) (plaintiff’s motion for preliminary settlement approval).

⁸As of the writing of this article, it may be more appropriate to consider it the Power Four + 1, i.e., without the collapsing Pac-12.

⁹Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-318, banning discrimination on the basis of sex.

¹⁰Crawford, “College Football’s Top 50 Programs Ranked by NIL Efforts,” 247 Sports (Aug. 27, 2024).

¹¹Talty, “Who’s Got the Money? Tiering the Eight Remaining College Football Playoff Teams by NIL Spending Power,” CBS Sports (Dec. 30, 2024).

¹²Crawford, “College Football NIL Collective Leaders for 2025: NCAA Estimates Nation’s Top-25 Spenders,” 247 Sports (Dec. 12, 2024).

¹³Secs. 512(a)(1) and 513(a); see American College of Physicians, 475 U.S. 834 (1986).

¹⁴Regs. Sec. 1.513-1(a).

¹⁵Tax Reform Act of 1976, P.L. 94-455, §1313(a), effective Oct. 5, 1976.

¹⁶Backus, “Big Ten Remains Power Five Revenue Leader With $880 Million Haul for 2023 Fiscal Year, per Report,” CBS Sports (May 23, 2024).

¹⁷“Finances of Intercollegiate Athletics: Division I Dashboard,” NCAA (December 2023).

¹⁸Cunningham, “12 Highest Paid College Football Coaches for the 2024 Season,” SI Online (Nov. 19, 2024).

19>Other issues remaining to be resolved include whether paid college athletes will be classified as employees of the university.

Contributor

Amy J. N. Yurko, J.D., Ph.D., is an associate professor at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. For more information about this article, contact thetaxadviser@aicpa.org.

AICPA & CIMA MEMBER RESOURCES

Link

NIL

Cap? What cap? Spending on players growing even after NCAA settlement :: WRAL.com

Published

17 minutes ago

December 14, 2025

Your Sports Nation

The settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences this year was supposed to cap the amount of money schools could pay athletes and establish stricter guidelines for name, image and likeness payments.

But the introduction of direct revenue sharing with athletes and new reporting requirements hasn’t stopped increased spending, according to coaches, athletics directors and general managers. Even President Donald Trump noted the high price for college talent recently in the Oval Office, and it’s not clear that anyone — in the pursuit of championships and on-field glory — can help themselves.

“Loopholes have won the day,” NC State football coach Dave Doeren said Wednesday.

The result is a continuing financial race across college athletics, especially football and men’s basketball, with seemingly no end to increasing costs at a time when the NCAA has abandoned or been forced to abandon its amateurism rules under a barrage of legal challenges and moves toward a professional model. Programs and conferences are working with private equity and trying to find new revenue streams amid the financial challenges.

Meanwhile, athletes are in their fifth year of being able to profit from their names, images and likenesses (NIL). And looser transfer rules implemented at the same time have enabled the movement of athletes akin to free agency in professional sports.

“Let’s make no doubt about it: We’re in a professional era,” University of North Carolina football general manager Michael Lombardi told reporters during a press conference this month.

The settlement in House v. NCAA — named for lead plaintiff Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer — led to direct revenue-sharing between schools and athletes. And it came with a cap: $20.5 million per school to be divided as they see fit among programs and athletes.

The number equaled 22% of average athletic revenue across teams in the four biggest, most powerful conferences and brought total spending on athletes to roughly 50% of revenues, including scholarships, travel, food and other expenses.

House and other athletes sued college sports’ governing body and the NCAA’s major conferences — the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC. The athletes argued that they deserved damages for not being allowed to monetize their NIL as the NCAA has allowed since 2021. They also wanted future broadcast revenue to be classified as NIL, opening the door to potential revenue sharing. The major conferences and the NCAA make the majority of their revenue through selling broadcast rights for football and men’s basketball. After several years, the dispute wound up with a proposed settlement.

The NCAA and member schools have pushed for federal legislation to allow them to codify some of the settlement and thwart some legal challenges, but that effort hasn’t produced a bill able to pass either chamber.

NIL spending

In addition to revenue sharing, the settlement allowed for outside compensation for the use of athletes’ names, images or likeness, but any deal above $600 would have to go through a new system, called NIL Go, designed to weed out abuses through the new College Sports Commission.

More than 12,000 deals for a total value of $87.5 million have been cleared by NIL Go as of Nov. 1, according to the College Sports Commission. Almost 400 deals worth $10 million haven’t been cleared since the launch of NIL Go on June 11. In October, more than 3,300 deals were cleared worth about $25 million – an average of $7,418 per deal.

The College Sports Commission initially said that NIL collectives — groups created to raise money to pay players for individual schools — wouldn’t meet the group’s “valid business purpose” criteria, a move designed to stop pay-to-play payments masquerading as contracts requiring nominal work or appearances. Within weeks, the commission reversed course, meaning NIL could continue to function as it has in addition to the new revenue sharing.

Collectives rushed to beat the implementation of the coming revenue-sharing cap by frontloading deals for athletes for the 2025-26 academic year so they wouldn’t count against that figure.

Texas Tech, which will play in this season’s College Football Playoff, is the most public example with billionaire boosters helping spend more than $28 million on its roster, including $7 million on its defensive line. Virginia, which reached the ACC title game, got at least $20 million from an anonymous donor to upgrade its football roster.

“You get what you pay for sometimes – most of the time,” said Doeren, who is completing his 13th season at NC State and is among the longest tenured coaches in major college football. “So that’s what people are doing to rebuild. Some of the schools have more than others. I don’t understand how we can say there’s a cap though, if there’s not.”

UNC paid $4 million over two years for quarterback Gio Lopez, a transfer from South Alabama, ESPN reported. Duke reportedly paid $8 million over two years for quarterback Darian Mensah, a transfer from Tulane who was the top passer in the ACC for Duke, which won its first outright ACC title since 1962. NC State quarterback CJ Bailey will likely have lucrative offers this offseason from teams in need.

Trump said NIL “is a disaster for sports.”

“You can’t pay a quarterback $14 million to come out of high school,” Trump said. “They don’t even know if he’s going to be a very good player. Colleges cannot afford to pay the kind of salaries you’re hearing out there.”

Salaries, particularly for high school players, haven’t reached that amount yet. But Trump suggested that colleges won’t be able to stop.

“They’re going to get wiped out, including ones that do well in football,” he said.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest schools won’t stop. LSU reportedly guaranteed new coach Lane Kiffin $25 million annually for his roster. Other schools, too, have promised their coaches millions for talent acquisition and retention, above and beyond the revenue-sharing cap.

“Tell me the numbers and the plan for what the money is for the players because that’s everything in that area to me,” Kiffin said at his introductory press conference, claiming he was unaware of his $13-million a year salary. “Not what I make, what they make, to understand how you can build this.”

Arms race

Officials from across the country are paying attention to reports of millions for rosters — and trying to square that with the new rules.

“The numbers you’re hearing and the numbers we know that are out there don’t compute with the cap number,” Notre Dame athletics director Pete Bevacqua said at a press conference last week. “I think we have to be honest and forthright with ourselves and have a set of rules that are realistic and reflect what’s happening, reflect major college football in 2025 and beyond.”

The revenue-sharing cap is $20.5 million, but the first $2.5 million of additional athletic scholarships across the department is supposed to count against the cap, something that could change moving forward. The cap goes up 4% annually.

North Carolina allocated $13 million to football, $7 million to men’s basketball, $250,000 to baseball and $250,000 to women’s basketball, roughly accounting for how the department generates its revenue. Bevacqua said some schools allocate up to $16 million of the cap to football.

“I think the cap’s too low, and I think if we keep operating under this rule of where the cap is, most major programs are going to have a heck of a time going backwards because you read the same news reports that I do,” Bevacqua said. “You read and know about the same roster numbers for NIL and compensation that I do. Instead of making pretend that doesn’t exist, let’s deal with it and come up with a set of rules that can be followed and then hold people’s feet to the fire.”

Before revenue sharing, programs were committing dollars that had been raised — or needed to be raised. Direct revenue sharing brought some certainty as to where the $20.5 million would come from. But the “above the cap” spending comes from outside dollars.

NC State’s OnePack NIL Collective, a group that helps fund NIL payments for Wolfpack, raises money by selling membership packages to fans and supporters, who get access to a variety of perks including newsletters, gear, autograph sessions and personalized tours from athletes.

North Carolina has adopted a corporate model, seeking to partner with companies to funnel more money toward its players. Sponsorship money that comes directly to the athletic department would count toward the revenue-sharing cap, Lombardi explained, while a corporate sponsorship deal with a player wouldn’t.

“Part of this job is still fundraising because the teams that you’re competing against – the Clemsons, the Florida States, the Virginias – they’re operating on a different level,” said Lombardi, who traveled to Saudi Arabia before the football season to meet with a potential donor for the UNC program.

“Everybody has a different level of financial money and you’ve got to be able to be competitive within that environment. Texas, Texas A&M, the Southeastern Conference schools, everybody gets $20.5 million. How it gets divided up is different, but everybody else is out fundraising through corporate dollars, which will then be allowed to go to the players.”

New model

As of 2021, players, at last, could get money to sign autographs, appear in commercials or for the sale of their jerseys. The market, quickly and predictably, expanded into talent acquisition and retention. In 2025, it is an accepted part of recruiting for high school players and college transfers.

Lombardi said every freshman signing with schools is getting a revenue share contract and that each comes with an acquisition cost in a highly competitive environment. UNC brought in 38 freshmen as part of its 39-man early signing day class in December.

“You can argue the order, but what’s your academic curriculum and what’s your NIL situation are two questions that got to get answered,” Lombardi said. “Maybe the second one goes first.”

Lombardi said the Tar Heels under coach Bill Belichick, who won six Super Bowl titles in the NFL but is new to the college game, needed time to get up and running to compete against others who have had a plan for several years.

They’re not alone. Coaches, general managers and programs have to figure out what numbers are real and what they can do within their own budget.

The transfer portal, which Lombardi has equated to NFL free agency, opens Jan. 2, though many players have already announced their intent to transfer and schools, no doubt, have lined up deals with them.

“It’s a mess right now,” Doeren said. “You just got to do the best you can. I know, as a program — [athletics director] Boo [Corrigan] and I’ve met — we’re going to do everything we can to be as aggressive as we can in this space.”

Link

NIL

President Donald Trump calls NIL ‘disaster,’ reiterates willingness to get involved

Published

2 hours ago

December 14, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Speaking from the Oval Office on Friday while honoring the “Miracle on Ice” 1980 U.S. men’s hockey team, President Donald Trump called NIL a “disaster” in college sports. He also further signaled his willingness to get involved.

Trump has been vocal about settling the landscape in college athletics. He signed an executive order earlier this year called “Save College Sports” to prohibit third-party, pay-for-play payments and directs the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board to clarify that athletes are amateurs and not employees.

SUBSCRIBE to the On3 NIL and Sports Business Newsletter

But as dollars continue to fly through NIL and revenue-sharing, Trump called for a “strong salary cap” and said colleges are putting themselves in tough financial shape as a result. He stressed the need for action and reiterated he’d step in, if necessary.

“You’re going to have these colleges wipe themselves out, and something ought to be done,” Trump said. “And I’m willing to put the federal government behind it. But if it’s not done fast, you’re going to wipe out colleges. They’re going to get wiped out, including ones that do well in football.

“They can’t pay $12 million, $14 million, $10 million, $6 million for players. They won’t be able to stop. There’ll always be that one player, they only have that player, they’re going to win the national championship. And they’ll have 100 colleges thinking the same thing. Colleges cannot afford to play this game. It’s a very bad thing that’s happening.”

Donald Trump: Schools ‘putting too much money into football’

President Donald Trump’s assessment of college athletics centers around Olympics sports, which he has said multiple times are caught in the middle of the current landscape. He said Friday schools have been cutting those non-revenue sports, calling them “training grounds” for the Olympics. For example, UTEP dropped women’s tennis while Grand Canyon cut men’s volleyball ahead of the House settlement.

As things currently stand, Trump argued schools are starting to divert more dollars toward football. As a result, other sports could be impacted.

“I think that it’s a disaster for college sports,” Trump said of NIL. “I think it’s a disaster for the Olympics. We’re losing a lot of teams. Colleges are cutting their, they would call them, sort of the lesser sports. They’re losing them at numbers nobody can believe. And they were really training grounds, beautiful training grounds. Hard-working, wonderful young people. They were training grounds for the Olympics, and a lot of these sports that were training so well would win gold medals because of it. Those sports don’t exist because they’re putting all that money into football.

“And, by the way, they’re putting too much money into football because colleges don’t make – even the most successful universities don’t make that much money. … I think the NIL is a disaster for sports. It’s horrible for the Olympics. I think it’s actually horrible for the players. And you’re losing all of these great sports. They’re not college football.”

Link

NIL

Bowl games are under stress. Thank goodness for BYU, Utah and Utah State – Deseret News

Published

3 hours ago

December 14, 2025

Your Sports Nation

At least in Utah, going to bowl games remains a very big deal.

The college football bowl season is undergoing an assault, with plenty of teams opting out of invitations to play in the postseason. The reasons vary, but the movement is tracking and threatening the bowl business.

But locally, the bowl train is heading down the track. The bowl thoughts are positive, and events remain as anticipated fun, a reward and an opportunity to shine.

It’s carnival time. Break out the travel plans.

Utah, BYU, and Utah State are locked in. It’s game time, show time, a rally point in December.

The 10-2 Utes can’t get enough of this season after the 2024 funk. The offense is rolling, Kyle Whittingham must be celebrated and this is his final game in Uteville.

For the Crimson faithful, this is a season that needs milking. Las Vegas is just a few Maverick and 7-Eleven stops away, and Dec. 31 is plenty of time to plan. Plus, Utah will kick Nebraska from Allegiant Stadium back to the corn fields.

In Logan, Bronco Mendenhall has the Aggies playing in the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl in Boise Dec. 22. This is a celebration of Mendenhall’s remarkable, gutsy entry back into Utah and a team that made impressive strides.

How can players, coaches and fans not want to see their Aggies take on future Pac-12 opponent and 6-6 Washington State and give this season one more run?

In Provo, Kalani Sitake got his contract extended. This means more support for his assistants, continuity for returning players and a time to salute their “player’s coach.”

It’s also a chance to get 12 wins and shoulder that chip after the College Football Playoff snub. They see this as Alamo Bowl and Colorado Part 2.

The biggest opt-out is Notre Dame. Shunned by the CFP committee, the Fighting Irish made a very public statement by refusing to play BYU in the Pop-Tarts Bowl in Orlando. It was a shot at ESPN, essentially telling the network “We’re not letting you make money (an estimated $50 million) off our brand when you snubbed our royal keisters.”

Big 12 brothers Iowa State (8-4) and Kansas State (7-5) are eligible for bowls, but declined. ISU lost head coach Matt Campbell to Penn State and players voted for health and safe practice reasons to decline. Similarly, K-State just had head coach Chris Klieman retire and uncertainty with staff, recruiting and health led the program to decline.

Both teams will be fined $500,000 for this decision.

Teams with 5-7 records were approached to go bowling, but many declined, including Baylor, UCF and Kansas.

That makes five Big 12 teams that turned away bowl invitations.

This places a cloud over the entire bowl industry when teams refuse to come and party in your cities, accept your gifts and use the event as a positive experience for the team and fans.

It’s a commentary more on the possible gloom settling around many teams in December because of the transfer portal, players bound for the NFL opting out and NIL money simply making the risk of injury or bad performance not worth it.

Players have their coin. They don’t need another PlayStation or Xbox.

NIL hasn’t caused a complete collapse (the delayed 2026 portal window helped stabilize many rosters), but it amplifies devaluation in the expanded CFP era.

Non-playoff bowls are increasingly seen as optional, with opt-outs rising from individual players to entire teams. If unchecked, this threatens the bowl system’s long-term viability, especially for mid-tier games.

In the future, we may see many NIL/revenue share deals that include contracts requiring bowl participation. Bowl organizers have discussed NIL incentives including direct payments to players to boost appeal, but most lower-tier bowls lack the budget to do that.

Critics argue NIL erodes tradition, turning bowls into “glorified scrimmages,” while supporters say it empowers players in a monetized sport.

Locally, Whittingham, Sitake and Mendenhall have all spoken in the past how important the extra practices for a bowl are for a team. They provide an extra period of time to develop players and foster competition.

Bowls also provide an event that many seniors deserve because some, if not most, will never play football again. It is also a chance to win another game and add to the momentum gained during the season as programs head into offseason workouts, the weight room and recruiting.

It would seem defections to the portal loom as a legitimate threat for many teams as they see their rosters depleted and their priority is loading up not with players directly out of high school but seasoned Division I athletes who have been through training programs and the next level and can step in and fill the gaps.

This, sadly, is the state of college football today. Bowl games, outside the CFP, are becoming endangered events.

Big 12 participating bowl teams (Texas Tech will play either Oregon or James Madison in the Orange Bowl on January 1 as part of the CFP):

Dec. 27 — Pop Tarts Bowl, BYU vs. Georgia Tech

Dec. 27 — Texas Bowl, Houston vs. LSU

Dec. 30 — Alamo Bowl, TCU vs. USC

Dec. 31 — Sun Bowl, Arizona State vs. Duke

Dec. 31 — Las Vegas Bowl, Utah vs. Nebraska

Jan. 2 — Holiday Bowl, Arizona vs. SMU

Jan. 2 — Liberty Bowl, Cincinnati vs. Navy

Link

NIL

UK athletic director Mitch Barnhart talks NIL resources

Published

4 hours ago

December 14, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Kentucky athletic director Mitch Barnhart speaks to members of the media following a press conference to announce Will Stein as the new UK football coach at Nutter Field House in Lexington, Ky., on Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2025. Ryan C. Hermens rhermens@herald-leader.com

Link

NIL

Nick Saban sounds alarm with 2-word condemnation of college football

Published

5 hours ago

December 14, 2025

Your Sports Nation

Nick Saban might be done patrolling a sideline, but he isn’t done challenging the sport he helped define.

Now an analyst on ESPN’s College GameDay, the seven-time national champion is pushing a simple, sweeping idea: college football needs a real boss. Not a committee, not a loose alliance of conferences—a single commissioner with authority over the entire sport, backed by a competition committee that can standardize how the game is run.

‘We don’t have that right now’

In Saban’s view, the mix of NIL money, constant transfers and conference realignment has pushed college football into a gray area where everyone has power and no one has control. He argues that without a centralized voice setting rules and expectations, the sport drifts.

Saban contrasted the current setup with an earlier era in which scholarship agreements spelled out academic standards, transfer expectations and long-term commitments between players and schools. Those guardrails, he believes, have been eroded to the point that the sport is flirting with chaos. If you’re not backing stronger structure, Saban suggested, you’re effectively siding with “a little bit of anarchy.”

The focus and money surrounding the College Football Playoff, in his mind, have only masked deeper structural problems.

Is Saban the obvious choice?

Saban isn’t alone in calling for a commissioner. Last year, James Franklin—then at Penn State and now at Virginia Tech—publicly argued for exactly that role and even floated Saban as the ideal candidate, saying college football needs someone who wakes up and goes to bed thinking only about what’s best for the sport.

Whether the job ever exists, and whether Saban would actually want it, remains an open question. But his message is blunt: college football is at a crossroads. For the former Alabama coach, the next era can’t just be about bigger TV deals and a larger playoff. It has to start with someone finally grabbing the wheel.

Link

NIL

Sunday Morning Quarterback: The gauntlet, the gold and the Aggie uprising

Published

6 hours ago

December 14, 2025

Your Sports Nation

The College Football Playoffs begin this week, and Dr. Pick’ Em–my favorite pigskin prognosticator, whose 83% success rate is as frightening as it is accurate–sent a postcard from the Caribbean to mark the occasion. On the front, a pristine beach. On the back, his verdict on the real winners scrawled in black Sharpie: “The Rich and Powerful.”

The bracket reveal is engineered to feel like the season’s crescendo, a pure celebration of merit. But Dr. Pick ‘Em, whose analytical precision is matched only by a cynicism grand enough to fill a stadium, sees the final rankings for what they are: the financial scaffolding of a system designed to protect two conferences, six high-rent bowls, and the owner’s box–the broadcast networks.

In the age of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) and the open transfer portal, college football finally has the ingredients for its own version of a magical tournament. Any ambitious program is now one phenomenal class of transfers away from being a true Cinderella, much like the teams that make March Madness so captivating. The overnight success of teams like Tulane, Vanderbilt, and Indiana demonstrates that NIL brings us closer to NFL parity, where a year-to-year talent infusion can spark a rapid ascent.

Yet, the CFP selection committee does its level best to discourage these potential Cinderellas. Instead of rewarding the magic, we have a system that awards a county fair’s blue ribbon based on the pig’s grandfather’s pedigree rather than the quality of its bacon. The committee favors the brand over the product, the résumé over the reality on the field.

The bowls, the networks, and the established power conferences act as the evil stepmother, using their structural power–television slots, scheduling prestige, and the subjective final vote–to ensure their favorites get the spotlight. The CFP, as currently constructed, discourages the glass slipper moment.

The transfer market and the conference shield

The inclusion of Indiana as a top seed is the perfect, living example of an NIL-fueled Cinderella story, but it comes with a massive asterisk that the committee ignores.

For decades, Indiana was the quintessential “potato cellar” program. When Coach Curt Cignetti was hired, he utilized the one-year blitz. He built a gritty foundation with over 30 transfers in his first season, then proved the model sustainable by reloading in year two with difference-makers like quarterback Fernando Mendoza. He and defensive anchors Mikail Kamara and Aiden Fisher transformed a perennial Big Ten bottom-feeder into a powerhouse.

But let’s be honest: Indiana’s Cinderella story only has a happy ending because of the logo on its jersey.

If this same scrappy, transfer-fueled squad were in the SEC – take Vanderbilt as a prime example – it would have faced Georgia, Texas, Alabama, and LSU. Instead of a pristine record and a No. 1 seed, the Hoosiers would be sitting at 8-4 or 9-3, likely watching the playoffs from home. A mid-major with the same talent would be fighting for the single “Group of Five” crumb left on the table. Indiana got the invite not just because it is good, but because the Big Ten provided a path protected by brand bias.

The Big Ten’s mirage vs. the SEC meat grinder

This year’s bracket has reignited the sport’s oldest feud, with arguments echoing from Columbus barbershops to Tuscaloosa BBQ joints. Big Ten fans point to the top of the board: their conference secured two of the top four seeds. It looks like dominance. But the illusion shatters upon inspection. The Big Ten placed only one other team, Penn State, in the 12-team field – a stark lack of depth.

Contrast that with the SEC, which placed five teams in the bracket but saw three more top-25 teams excluded. This isn’t about conference pride; it’s about the brutal physics of the schedule. Metrics like SP+, which measure dominance, show the SEC’s top tier dwarfing the Big Ten’s. For an SEC contender, a “break” means facing a Kentucky team full of future NFL draft picks. The bruises are cumulative.

The committee, in a rare nod to reality, tacitly admitted that surviving the SEC gauntlet with two losses is a more impressive feat than navigating a top-heavy Big Ten schedule unscathed, ranking a 10-2 Texas A&M ahead of an 11-1 champion from a weaker conference.

The Aggie anomaly: earning the slipper

Which brings us to the Texas A&M Aggies (11-1, No. 7 seed), the team Dr. Pick ‘Em believes is currently playing the best football in America. By any measure, the Aggies are surging. Their defense is suffocating, and their offense has found a ruthless rhythm. Their body of work was forged in the SEC’s fiercest fires.

Their single blemish came not in a sleepy September game, but in the final week against a desperate Texas Longhorns squad fighting for its playoff life. In the cold calculus of evaluation, A&M was penalized for the difficulty of its environment and denied a first-round bye, a classic case of the system favoring the “clean” résumé over the “hard” one.

Meanwhile, contenders like Notre Dame built cases on “Soft Landings.” The Irish touted a win over a dysfunctional Arkansas as proof of grit, while padding their schedule with scheduled convalescences against the likes of Stanford and Virginia. By excluding the Irish, the committee sent a powerful message: a glossy win total built on cupcakes is a liability.

Cathedrals, chapels, and a ray of hope

The current two-tiered ecosystem is patently unfair. The big winners are the Cathedrals of Revenue – the major bowls and networks. The dozens of other bowl games became Sidelined Chapels.

However, there is a sliver of hope. An expanded playoff system might actually rescue the very bowl ecosystem it appears to be decimating. By moving the first four CFP games to campus sites, the quarterfinal and semifinal rounds are now exclusively hosted by the New Year’s Six bowls. That guarantees those premier games remain significant and hugely profitable.

If the CFP were to expand again to 16 teams, more bowls would be absorbed into the playoff structure, providing guaranteed relevance and financial survival for more of the postseason. In this way, the CFP’s growth could offer a lifeline to the institutions it previously left floundering.

For now, though, the system implicitly tells fans of “Chapel” schools that their passion is secondary. Notre Dame’s reaction–a public sulk with players sprinting for the portal–taught us that for many, only the Cathedral matters.

Prediction: the gauntlet’s payoff

Despite the bias, Dr. Pick ‘Em is betting on the one asset the system can’t purchase: Momentum. He sees this bracket breaking for the battle-tested.

First Round: Oklahoma survives a slugfest against Alabama, while Texas A&M smothers Miami in College Station.

The Run: A&M’s physicality breaks the will of Texas Tech’s high-flying offense, followed by a defensive masterpiece against Georgia.

The Championship: The moneyed favorite, Ohio State, against the fire-forged Texas A&M.

Final Prediction: Texas A&M 31, Ohio State 27

The rich usually get richer in this sport. But this January, Dr. Pick ‘Em is wagering that a team forged in fire will prove that a champion can still be crowned by the scoreboard, not by pedigree.

But don’t hold your breath for a total revolution. The system makes sure the stepsisters get to the dance while the Cinderellas stay home.

Link