The House v. NCAA settlement could reshape the landscape of higher education by allowing colleges to pay athletes directly, raising questions about the future of academic and athletic balance. At its core, the decision proposes a model of athlete compensation that diverges sharply from traditional views of amateurism in college sports. Rather than emphasizing scholarships and academic advancement, athletes might increasingly prioritize their sport to maximize earnings, thus challenging the mission of higher education.
The $2.78 billion settlement for back-pay to former college athletes outlines direct compensation to Division I college athletes for their contributions to their schools, with funding expected to come partly from the NCAA’s reserves and future revenue shares from the Power Five conferences. The NCAA would shoulder around $1.2 billion in back-pay damages over a decade, while the conferences would contribute about 22 percent in withheld revenues. The implications of this are profound: with the additional financial burden, many universities may need to reallocate funds from other areas, including academic resources, to support the revenue-sharing model.
The settlement will allow every athlete from 2016 to 2021 to opt into revenue sharing, creating a precedent that redefines the student-athlete as both a student and an employee. This shift may incentivize athletes to focus more on athletic excellence for financial gain rather than academic achievement, as performance on the field becomes tied directly to their livelihood.
The settlement’s effect on financial distribution could pressure institutions to make difficult choices about their priorities, particularly if a large portion of funds goes toward compensating athletes rather than enhancing the academic experience.
In an article on Inside Higher Ed, the author argues that universities should center their missions on societal effect, community connection, and student support rather than market-driven priorities. They emphasize that institutions aiming to be mission-driven need to blend teaching, research, and service in ways that foster genuine public engagement and inclusivity. This approach calls for balancing academic pursuits and financial considerations, as overly focusing on financial gain risks compromising the fundamental mission of education and service to society.
This new payment model could make the gap between small and large universities even bigger. Smaller schools may struggle to compete with larger programs with more money. This could lead to smaller programs looking for funds in less reliable places, which might hurt their finances and distract them from their main goal: education. If schools have to take money away from academics to pay athletes, it could lower the quality of education and resources for all students, especially in programs that already have limited funding.
Additionally, the pressure to pay athletes could create ethical problems. To attract top players, universities might lower their academic standards or ignore admission requirements, which could hurt the quality of education. There have been cases where the focus on athletics overshadowed academic qualifications, leading to scandals that harm a school’s reputation.
An investigation into the University of North Carolina (UNC) revealed nearly two decades of academic fraud involving fake classes created to keep student-athletes eligible for competition. According to the report, these “paper classes” required minimal to no work, allowing athletes to maintain the academic standing necessary to play. This setup was driven by the pressure to prioritize athletic performance over academic integrity, leading to significant reputational damage for UNC. Such examples highlight the ethical risks universities face when athletics take precedence, undermining academic standards and potentially impacting the quality of education for all students.
Ultimately, if profit overshadows purpose, higher education risks losing sight of its true mission: empowering students beyond the game.
Image designed by Jared Gould using assets by Proxima Studio (Adobe Stock, Asset ID #487339703), Naypong Studio (Adobe Stock, Asset ID #188185465), and sframe (Adobe Stock, Asset ID #37595432).
