How Will Power 5 Schools Split $23.1 Million from House v. NCAA Settlement?

The House v. NCAA settlement disclosed the total revenue produced by men’s and women’s sports across the Power 5 conferences, along with each group’s contribution, as a percentage, of overall earnings. Men’s sports account for roughly 97.8% of the revenue, while women’s sports contribute about 2.2%. Inevitably, questions of equity will arise among the various sports at each university.

If schools were to distribute the funds equitably—meaning in proportion to the percentages outlined in the settlement—men’s sports in the Power 5 conferences would receive approximately $22,591,800 of the $23.1 million allocated. Meanwhile, women’s sports would be allocated $508,200 in total.

Should the $23.1 Million be Distributed Equitably?

The method by which each school allocates the $23.1 million will undoubtedly differ; there will be as many plans as there are schools. Without question, most distribution plans will spark controversy. Achieving unanimous satisfaction among all sports and players at a school is an unrealistic expectation, regardless of the approach taken.

Nevertheless, each school’s athletic director or general manager will be compelled to devise a compensation package for their athletes. The compensation is not likely to be equitable among athletes. That is, all athletes at the school would not simply get a “fair share” of the $23.1 million. If that were the case, each student-athlete would receive roughly $48,125.00, no matter which sport they played (assuming 480 student-athletes per Division I school).

Revenue-driving sports like football and men’s basketball often fund the university’s non-revenue-generating sports. It’s logical, therefore, to allocate a larger proportion of the funds to those sports based on their financial contribution to the school. Paying athletes proportionally to the revenue they generate aligns with the free-market principles that currently underlie NIL deals and how other professional players are compensated.

On the other hand, a more equitable approach to a school’s compensation package, where all athletes are paid the same $48,125.00, would communicate how the school values each individual player regardless of the revenue their sport generates. Schools who are steadfast in holding onto the amateurism principles originally found in college athletics’ foundation would take this more balanced approach.

Should There be Uniform Guidelines Controlling the Compensation?

No matter which approach a school chooses to take, each conference should implement guidelines for the schools’ compensation packages. Without guidelines, formidable revenue-generating sports like football may disproportionately dominate funds, leaving little to none revenue for other programs, including women’s sports.

There must also be program oversight at each school so that the students and public know how the funds are being dispersed. Such transparency and fair processes can prevent accusations of bias and would foster trust among athletes, administrators, and the public. Athletes would be drawn to those types of programs knowing they would be treated fairly.

There are no two schools that are the same within any Power 5 conference, however. And each athletic director understands their school's unique needs and should have the flexibility to allocate funds strategically to remain competitive in their respective sports. If too rigid guidelines are placed on athletic directors, they could stifle creative solutions, like incentive-based pay structures, that may better align with the goals of individual programs.

Splitting the $23.1 million is no slam dunk; in its inaugural year, the revenue-sharing plan will feel more like a Hail Mary with everyone scrambling for the funds. Ultimately, how each institution approaches this distribution will reflect its priorities, but transparency, thoughtful oversight, and tactical flexibility will be essential to creating trust while at the same time maintaining competitive athletic programs.