Tremors from House vs. NCAA
The college sport context for many Olympic sports is fading away. We have to think of something else.
The proposed settlement in House vs. NCAA is still pending approval, but its implications are already causing disruptions across the collegiate sports landscape. While football and basketball players eagerly anticipate potential rewards, Olympic sport athletes remain in a state of quiet apprehension, fearing that the ground on which they stand could be pulled away. While things seem to be moving towards new stability such as the planning of roster limits, the distribution of House payments, and the reworking of NIL setups, the future remains uncertain. Even if the currently proposed elements are finalized, the extent of the damage to Olympic sports is still unknown.
Olympic sport governing bodies have been grappling with turmoil in collegiate sports for at least the past three decades. This turbulence often stems from the aftermath of Title IX requirements. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, women’s sports opportunities surged in high schools and colleges, as anticipated after the passage of The Educational Amendments Act of 1972, which included Title IX.
Schools swiftly introduced women’s teams, but soon, the concept of ‘fairness’ evolved into a more complex and legally defined issue. The ratio of male to female athletes had to be proportional to a school’s overall enrollment, the number and value of scholarships had to be at least somewhat equal, and facilities and equipment for women’s teams had to be upgraded to match those for men.
As a consequence, some schools couldn’t afford to expand women’s opportunities, so they reduced men’s programs by controlling roster slots and, in some cases, eliminating entire teams. While this wasn’t an ideal solution, it did meet the numerical requirements of Title IX, albeit not its spirit.
While Title IX’s role in these cutbacks is undeniable, it pales in comparison to what Murray Sperber referred to as “Big Time College Sport” in his 2000 book, “Beer and Circus.” Although some details may be outdated, Sperber’s underlying thesis remains valid. For instance, many of the Power Four schools not only generate revenue from their sport programs but also make substantial profits. This wasn’t the case when Sperber wrote about it in the 1990s, during which most athletic departments incurred losses. However, things have changed since then, and anyone paying attention will be aware of this. The rise of big-time college sports played a pivotal role in setting the stage for House vs. NCAA.
As Olympic sport opportunities dwindled in college athletic departments, few anticipated the imminent demise of an integral part of some sport’s Olympic development pathways. While the changes triggered by Title IX were disappointing, they were not catastrophic. Some hoped that the mythos defining educational sports—molding character, fostering athlete development, and providing opportunities for leadership and teamwork—could prevail and safeguard the sport from cuts. However, this strategy has repeatedly proved ineffective.
House raises the stakes significantly. It represents a substantial increase in the cost of operating sport programs without corresponding revenue to offset these new expenses. This poses an existential threat to collegiate Olympic sports as we have long known them.
Upon implementation, House will lead to an immediate reduction in the number of opportunities to participate in collegiate sports. Indeed, this is already occurring based on the assumption that the proposed settlement will be approved. To adequately fund revenue sports under House’s new requirements, schools will be compelled to reevaluate the scope of their Olympic programs. Roster limits will be reduced, resulting in smaller team sizes. Moreover, unlimited scholarships will disrupt competitive parity in certain sports.
Olympic NGBs have been slow to acknowledge the gradual changes occurring over the years, but this is changing. Sam Seemes, the CEO of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association, remarked on this.
“Our sports are under siege. Not in some distant future, right now. The threats are real and they’re immediate. We’re seeing shrinking opportunities for student athletes, vanishing budgets, disappearing scholarships, reduced coaching positions, complete program elimination threats, and replacement by sports that are perceived by administrators as more valuable than ours. If you think I’m being an alarmist, wake up. Every headline, every report, every analysis, every interview of administrators of college athletics points to an uncertain future for programs beyond football and basketball.”
A hearing is scheduled in April to address objections concerning roster limits, NIL distributions, antitrust concerns, and Title IX compliance. These are areas of law that have launched entire legal careers, so it’s unreasonable to expect them to be easily resolved. Once the dust settles, non-revenue sports—any sport that isn’t football or basketball—will face unprecedented challenges. The ripples from House will impact all levels of sports.
Until now, Olympic sport programs have managed to evade the consequences of their inaction. However, it’s time to acknowledge that the college sport context for many Olympic sports is rapidly disappearing. We must think of something else.
Most interesting Bill. Sad though.