The Future of The NCAA

The NCAA was once hailed as the premier destination for amateurs to thrive as student-athletes, balancing rigorous academic demands with the pure joy of competing in a sport they loved for its own sake. Fast-forward to today, and it has morphed into something even more insidious than the cartel many analysts decry: a near-monopoly on collegiate athletics, where no other organization offers young people the chance to pursue higher education alongside elite-level sports. But is the NCAA truly prioritizing the best interests of its core asset—its student-athletes?

The Catalyst

The turning point came in 2021 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in NCAA v. Alston, a case that challenged the association’s restrictions on education-related benefits for athletes. Led by former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston, the lawsuit argued that NCAA rules capping benefits like laptops, internships, and postgraduate scholarships violated federal antitrust laws under the Sherman Act. The Court agreed, ruling that these limits constituted an unlawful restraint on trade, affirming lower court decisions that allowed schools to provide unlimited education-related compensation.

While Alston didn’t directly address NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) rights, it exposed the NCAA’s amateurism model to broader antitrust scrutiny. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion was particularly scathing, likening the NCAA’s practices to a cartel that exploited athletes while enriching coaches and administrators.

The decision’s ripple effects were profound. Alston dismantled barriers that had long suppressed athlete earnings. For basketball stars, this meant lucrative deals with brands like Nike or Gatorade, transforming recruiting dynamics overnight. Next came the House settlement, which completely ended the NCAA as we once knew it.

The settlement was finalized in mid-2025 after years of litigation. This $2.8 billion agreement resolved antitrust claims from athletes alleging the NCAA unlawfully restricted compensation. Key provisions include backpay for past athletes and, crucially, a framework for direct revenue sharing starting in the 2025-26 academic year. Under the deal, Power Five schools can distribute up to $20.5 million annually (about 22% of average revenues from media, tickets, and sponsorships) directly to athletes, with the cap rising over time. This applies across sports but prioritizes football and basketball, where revenues dominate.

The Future of The NCAA

To comply, the NCAA has imposed new sport-by-sport roster limits starting in 2025-26, replacing old scholarship caps with broader restrictions on team sizes. For example:

• Football: Roster cap of 105 (up from 85 scholarships, but effectively limiting walk-ons).
• Men’s basketball: 15 roster spots.
• Non-revenue examples: Baseball drops to 34 (from unlimited, but with 11.7 scholarships); women’s volleyball to 18; track and field/cross country to 45 per gender.

These caps aim to control costs but could eliminate 10,000-25,000 roster spots across Division I, disproportionately affecting non-revenue sports where walk-ons (non-scholarship athletes) are common. Schools opting into the settlement (most Power 5 have, with a June 2025 deadline) must navigate this while adhering to Title IX, which requires gender equity in opportunities—meaning cuts can’t disproportionately hit women’s programs without legal risks.

We’re already seeing the fallout:

• Since July 2025, over 182 sports programs have been cut nationwide, often to fund the “arms race” in football and basketball. Examples include smaller D1 schools dropping men’s tennis, wrestling, or track to reallocate resources.
• Walk-ons may largely disappear in many sports by 2026, as roster caps force coaches to prioritize scholarship athletes.
• Broader impacts: Non-revenue cuts could weaken the U.S. Olympic pipeline, as college programs train a huge portion of American athletes in sports like swimming or gymnastics.

The harsh reality is that big-money conferences like the SEC and Big Ten will likely sustain most of their programs by tapping into expanded revenues from media deals, playoff expansions, and sponsorships. Yet, in this pay-for-play era of college sports, we must return to the original purpose of the student-athlete: balancing athletic competition with the pursuit of a meaningful education. Let’s remember where we came from and ensure the system evolves without losing its soul.