The End of the NCAA? Ushering in the new age of college athletics
By Will Hoey
Since March 31, 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has controlled collegiate athletics. The body was founded at the bequest of President Theodore Roosevelt, a die-hard football fan, who was disappointed by the deaths of collegiate football players. Now, 120 years later, it may be possible that the death of the NCAA is imminent. After a decades-long stranglehold on college athletics, recent court decisions have raised questions about the NCAA's legitimacy.
For years, colleges and universities, student-athletes, and the general public have accepted the notion of amateurism. Rooted in the NCAA's values is the protection of college athletes. For example, student-athletes were granted full scholarships to their institutions in recognition of excelling in their athletic domain to the point of competing at the collegiate level. When athletes would break these amateurism rules, the NCAA would bring down the hammer. Former star University of Southern California football player, Reggie Bush, had his Heisman trophy taken away when the NCAA found Bush received improper financial payments. As with many governing bodies, the NCAA adapted with the times and returned the trophy in 2024 as a result of public backlash for reform.
When the NCAA was first created, television did not exist. Last year, 10 FBS Conferences and Notre Dame, which does not belong to a conference, finalized a television deal for their College Football Playoff that totaled over $1 billion. Furthermore, 80% of states record a coach as their highest-paid public employee, with the exceptions being predominantly states without large public universities, such as Montana and Alaska. Times have changed; it is hard to argue that college athletics are still an amateur sport when the cost to televise games gives millions to universities and coaches.
For years, the NCAA has used the guise of amateurism to justify not compensating athletes beyond a scholarship. In 2014, cracks in this armor were made by a former UCLA basketball player, Ed O’Bannon. Among other players, the likeness of O’Bannon was used in a collegiate video game approved by the NCAA. O’ Bannon argued the NCAA rules barring athletes from being compensated for the name, image, and likeness violated illegal restraint of trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Furthermore, he argued that simply giving student-athletes a scholarship did not reflect the full costs of attending university. In response to the outcome of the case, the NCAA granted universities the ability to provide athletes with a maximum of $5,000 to cover educational expenses not covered by a scholarship.
In June 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the NCAA’s established limit in the O’Bannon case in the NCAA v. Alston case. A former West Virginia football player, Shaun Alston, alleged that the rules against compensation limits violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, similar to O’Bannon. The NCAA contended that the rules promoted amateurism and distinguished collegiate athletics from professional athletics, effectively requesting special treatment due to the unique nature of collegiate athletics. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with the NCAA’s contention, ruling 9-0 in favor of Alston. The language used in the decision viciously tore into the NCAA and the amateurism guise that the NCAA had hidden behind for years. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted, “the NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.” In his argument, which concurred with the 35-page decision from Justice Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh compared the NCAA and universities within the NCAA to the restaurant industry, noting that if all restaurants colluded together to set an earning limit for chefs, then antitrust lawsuits would have arisen immediately. The NCAA got away with it for decades. This cartel-like analogy opened a door to the possibility of future lawsuits, which posed a threat to the entire existence of the NCAA.
What followed was the unprecedented move of college athletics into the name, image, and likeness era, seven years after the inception of Alston’s lawsuit. Players nearly immediately began signing endorsement deals with brands worth more than a year’s tuition to college.
The final shred of armour in the shield of amateurism is now nearly finished. A number of former NCAA athletes from before the name, image, and likeness era retroactively sued the NCAA for damages from playing in an era before the name, image, and likeness rules took effect. However, these athletes took their lawsuit one step further, seeking to include in the damages what they believed was their fair share of television revenue. With the writing on the wall for the NCAA, the body elected not to risk trial and landed on a massive $2.7 billion settlement. This settlement is still pending final approval from a judge as of April 9, 2025. Now, the line that once divided college sports from professional sports is extremely blurred. The next step for the NCAA is undoubtedly a pay-for-play model, as the NCAA has agreed to a revenue-sharing agreement allowing schools to pay up to $20 million per year to its athletes as part of the settlement.
It is unlikely that the NCAA will cease to exist, but it is certainly a possibility. In the next decade, the NCAA will face pivotal discussions about its role in college athletics. However, the NCAA will not be the prominent leader of the conversation. Within the next 3-5 years, the NCAA must, at the very least, implement structural organizational changes to comply with court decisions and maintain its status as a prosperous entity. And the NCAA must do all that while under the financial strain of nearly $3 billion in settlements should the aforementioned settlement become finalized.
Conferences, like the SEC and Big 10, have nearly all the leverage in these conversations. And as the adage goes, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has suggested that the courts may not be the best way to decide the future of college athletics; instead, national standards from Congress could be the best route forward. Ultimately, these conferences will make the decision that best serves their own financial interests. Of the 229 NCAA Division-I public athletic programs, only 18 turned a profit in their 2019-2020 fiscal year. While, of course, that year was affected by COVID-19 for at least some of their reporting, the trend of a small number of universities with profitable athletic programs remains. For many schools, their athletic program is meant to operate at a deficit to ensure the publicity and school pride that comes with athletics. For example, Florida Gulf Coast University experienced a significant surge in applications following an unexpected run in the NCAA Men's March Madness. Programs like these, that are not household names, do not have spare money to give to athletes and will create a massive competitive disadvantage.
The future of the NCAA is in the balance over the next few years. The courts have set the precedent over the last five years that simply will not allow the NCAA to function as it has for decades. The question now is what the NCAA will do to adapt. Will the NCAA create a separate entity for football, the only consistently profitable sport for many institutions? Will institutions decide to separate their football programs from the NCAA for the sake of revenue and revenue sharing on their own? Can the Big 10 and SEC, the two most successful conferences, separate from the NCAA and create a model similar to the AFC and NFC in professional football? The backbone of college athletics for nearly two centuries has been the notion of amateurism. Now that the courts have abolished that notion, it is evident that the NCAA requires significant structural changes. However, that change may mark the end of the NCAA and the beginning of a new era in college athletics.
