We are now in uncharted waters regarding college sport.
Last month, Division I colleges and universities began paying their athletes from a $20.5 million pot per school in additional benefits besides scholarships.
This cap, based on a specified percentage (22%) of the average athletics-generated revenues of the Power 5 schools, will vary over the next 10 years, and is projected to reach as high as $33 million per school by year 10.
The new college sport revenue sharing is the result of the House v. NCAA settlement, but schools aren’t told how they can distribute these funds among or within their sports programs, only that the money goes to college athletes. This in itself can open yet another can of worms. College athletes, who have historically been on the outside looking in while their schools rake in millions solely on their athletic performances, are finally getting their due. Still there are those who subscribe to the archaic amateur belief that college players getting a scholarship should be enough.
We talked to Kassandra Ramsey, president of The Drake Group, a nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1999 by a former Drake University professor that tries to better educate U.S. Congress and higher education policymakers about critical issues in college athletics. The think tank is composed of academic types, experts in sports management, sports economics, and sports law.
“I would say it wasn’t totally unexpected,” said Ramsey of the exec order. “I think for a lot of people like myself who’ve been studying the industry, it’s an executive order. It’s not really indicative of what may actually come to be or really has no real enforcement power.”
We saw this misguided belief promoted once again last week after a presidential executive order was issued that aimed to regulate how NIL is paid to athletes. Since 2021, college athletes have been able to profit off their name, image and likeness, and get paid legally via third parties.
Ramsey has been president since 2024. She is an attorney by trade.
“When I was in law school, I wrote a paper about college athletics because I always thought that the system was kind of fundamentally wrong,” she recalled. “I wrote about advocating for college athletes rights…
“I knew that athletes, particularly athletes of color, would need resources and access to people to help them understand these concerns and why it’s important, and understand the [NIL] deals that they’re signing.
“I really just have a passion, just to help athletes and their parents to be able to use these opportunities to set themselves up” for building generational wealth, Ramsey pointed out.
Ramsey recently released two papers, one on colleges complying with Title IX in light of the House settlement, and another urging the NCAA to set up policies to address flaws in the settlement.
“I think that one of the main things that is important for Title IX is ensuring that the revenue share payments are provided in such a way that it complies with Title IX,” advised Ramsey. “You use the word ‘equitable,’ and that’s what I tell people when we talk about Title IX. It doesn’t necessarily require that things be equal, like dollar for dollar, but it does have to be equitable.”
Reportedly, University of Minnesota football will receive around 75%, and men’s and women’s basketball, men’s hockey and volleyball will share the remaining 25%.
Are we seeing in this new system a built-in inequity? What about Gopher women’s hockey, one of the best in the nation and historically competing for national championships? Yet football, which hasn’t won a national title since 1960, and hasn’t won a Big Ten title, gets the lion’s share of the Gopher money.
“We’re trying to make sure that there are equitable opportunities for both men’s and women’s athletics, and that includes revenue sharing,” stressed Ramsey.
Charles Hallman welcomes reader comments to challman@spokesman-recorder.com.