Many in college sports are unsettled by the NCAA's salary plan

Brent Jacquette knows college sports. As a former college football player and coach in Pennsylvania who now works as an executive at an athletic recruiting consulting firm, he is very aware of the issues surrounding college athlete pay.

But even for an industry veteran like Mr. Jacquette, news of the NCAA's stunning settlement in a class-action lawsuit over antitrust violations on Thursday came as a surprise and sparked more than a little concern. The first words that came to mind were “trepidation” and “confusion,” he said.

And he wasn't the only one feeling uncertain. Interviews, statements and social media posts just hours after the agreement was announced showed that many were uncertain and worried about what the future of college sports would hold.

“These are unprecedented times, and these decisions will have a seismic effect on the permanent landscape of college sports,” Phil DiStefano, chancellor of the University of Colorado Boulder, and Rick George, the school’s athletic director, said in a statement.

If the $2.8 billion settlement is approved by a judge, it would enable a profit-sharing plan that would allow Division I athletes to be paid directly by their schools to play sports – a first in the nearly 120-year history of NCAA Division 1. Starting with the 2025 football season, schools would be expected to spend about $20 million annually to pay their athletes.

The word “trepidation” came to Mr. Jacquette's mind as he considered the impact the agreement reached by the largest and wealthiest universities with their strong football programs could have on coaches and athletes at smaller institutions and in lesser-known sports.

And “confusion” because the families of college athletes may soon be overwhelmed by the many ways a student can be paid. In the past, students could only be compensated in the form of athletic scholarships. But now that there is the possibility of a revenue-sharing plan and payment arrangements that include the student's name, image and likeness, they have a lot more to consider when planning their college athletic career.

“Because this is big news, people see a pot of gold at the end of the tunnel,” Mr Jacquette said.

Many wondered what the financial burdens would be that would result from a revenue sharing plan.

Smaller conferences like the Big East – which includes Georgetown, Villanova and the University of Connecticut – have expressed “strong objections” to the settlement, fearing they will have to bear an unfair burden of the costs associated with revenue sharing. They said schools that have better-known sports teams and are part of larger conferences that often have television contracts and much higher revenues should be responsible for absorbing a larger share of the costs.

Even coaches at high-powered athletic programs like the University of Florida, which is part of the Southeastern Conference, had concerns. Tim Walton, the school's softball coach, wondered in an interview with The Associated Press what this would mean for smaller athletic programs on campus and how the university would handle revenue sharing with the athletes.

Another concern raised by critics of the settlement was whether female athletes would be compensated fairly. The settlement did not address how they would be paid compared to men, but Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions.

Hudson Taylor, executive director of Athlete Ally, an advocacy group for LGBTQ athletes, welcomed the agreement but said in a statement that it “lacks important provisions for sports that do not generate revenue.”

“Without such regulations, many athletes are likely to be left behind, particularly in most women’s sports and sports with openly LGBTQI+ athletes,” Taylor said.

Many, however, are wondering how the agreement will play out in practice. Terry Connor, the athletic director at Thomas More University in Kentucky, said in an interview that the reality of revenue sharing seems a long way off. Although his school is Division II and would not be part of a revenue sharing plan, Mr. Connor said it still affects college sports as a whole.

The agreement is just the latest in a series of major changes at the NCAA in recent years, Connor said, and “the big question will be how we adapt to it.”

Mr. Jacquette cautioned that it was “premature” to judge the full impact of the settlement because the details had not yet been released. And Sam C. Ehrlich, a professor at Boise State University who has written extensively about college athletes, said that while the settlement was a milestone, it should not be viewed as the be-all and end-all of college sports.

Ehrlich pointed to the Supreme Court's unanimous 2021 ruling that the NCAA could not prohibit payments to college athletes, saying the landscape of college sports is constantly changing. That decision paved the way for NIL agreements, or payments based on an athlete's name, image and likeness. He also pointed to Johnson v. NCAA, a pending case about whether college athletes should be classified as employees, which could have profound labor and tax law implications.

“This is certainly a big moment, but we haven't reached the finish line yet,” Ehrlich said. “I wouldn't even go so far as to say this is the high point. This will continue for several years.”

Billy Joke contributed to the reporting.