The financial landscape of college athletics is undergoing a significant transformation, with revenue sharing changes at the forefront. The debate surrounding athlete compensation has brought to light the financial structure that has long supported college sports. Football and men’s basketball have traditionally been the financial powerhouses, subsidizing nearly every other sport at major universities.
This arrangement may be coming to an end as new regulations and settlements redirect the surplus generated by these revenue sports. The implications for women’s and Olympic sports, which have relied on these subsidies, are profound. Understanding these changes is crucial for anyone invested in the future of college athletics.
The Financial Powerhouses of College Sports
Football and men’s basketball have long been the financial engines of college athletics. According to the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act reports, these sports generated substantial surpluses in 2026. For instance, Michigan reported over $120 million in combined surplus from these two sports, while Tennessee exceeded $116 million. These figures are not isolated; many schools in the Big Ten, SEC, and ACC reported similar surpluses.
The pattern extends beyond the largest programs. Schools like Boise State and San Diego State also saw significant surpluses, with football and men’s basketball generating more than $20 million and about $6 million respectively. However, these figures may understate the true subsidy, as reporting can be inconsistent and opaque. Despite these challenges, the data consistently shows that football and men’s basketball generate cash, while nearly every other sport consumes it.
The Impact on Non-Revenue Sports
Women’s sports, in particular, have faced significant financial challenges. At the 12 Big Ten schools with complete women’s sports data, the average deficit approached $20 million. Similarly, nine SEC women’s programs reported deficits above $27 million. Success on the field rarely changes the financial arithmetic. For example, Nebraska and Wisconsin built elite volleyball programs but still lost over $1 million in 2026. Even national champion programs, like South Carolina’s women’s basketball team, ran deficits exceeding $5 million.
Men’s non-revenue sports also lose money, though generally less. At Big Ten schools with complete reports, these programs averaged roughly $10 million in losses. The disparity highlights how football and men’s basketball have sustained the breadth of modern athletic departments. Ticket sales, television contracts, and donations tied to these sports have long financed teams that cannot cover their own costs.
The Redirection of Surplus Revenue
The NIL settlement is redirecting the surplus from football and men’s basketball. Schools can now share revenue directly with athletes under a cap, while collectives and boosters can make additional uncapped payments. Early evidence suggests that most capped money is flowing to the athletes who generate it. For example, Texas Tech spent 74% of its cap on football and 17.5% on men’s basketball. North Carolina State spent more than 85% on these two sports, and North Carolina spent nearly 98%.
The logic is clear: schools competing for top athletes will direct money toward the players who determine wins, television audiences, and donor enthusiasm. Every dollar paid to these athletes is a dollar no longer available to subsidize programs that run permanent deficits. Additionally, donors who once gave to athletic departments may now direct funds to outside collectives focused on recruiting and retaining football and basketball players. This creates a second pressure on the same revenue engines.
President Trump’s executive order on college athletics recognizes the danger. It warns that the new financial pressures could jeopardize women’s and Olympic sports and seeks greater discipline in the post-settlement system. Whether the order or any pending bill can preserve the old model remains an open question. Congress cannot legislate away basic economics. Athletes in revenue sports now have a stronger claim on the money they generate, and schools still want to maintain dozens of teams that do not generate enough revenue to sustain themselves. The same dollars cannot fully satisfy both demands.
For decades, college athletics concealed this trade-off behind the language of one unified department. The financial reports tell a simpler story: football and men’s basketball laid the golden eggs, and nearly everyone else lived on them. That arrangement may be ending. Congress should understand what it is trying to save before promising that every program can survive unchanged.
