https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40071715/ncaa-pay-more-27b-settle-antitrust-suits-sources-say
This paragraph is what really attracted my attention:
"The settlement would come with a corresponding commitment from conferences and schools to share revenue with athletes moving forward, sources said. The settlement would establish a framework for power conferences to share revenue with their athletes in the future. Sources have told ESPN that schools are anticipating a ceiling of nearly $20 million per year for athlete revenue share moving forward. (That figure is derived from a formula that's expected to be, per sources, 22% of a revenue metric that's still being discussed, which is set to be based on various revenue buckets. It would be up to the schools to share that much.)"
Assuming schools will be paying 20% (or more) of their revenue to student athletes, this suggests those with more revenue will be able to pay each student-athlete more. But at the same time, it's unlikely the schools will want to pay the student-athletes in non-revenue generating sports (basically, anything not football and men's basketball) much, if anything. But that could run afoul of Title IX, especially where basketball is concerned, as the disparity in pay could be a form of sexual discrimination since both men and women's basketball players perform the same function. Even if a school were to argue that men's basketball brings in more revenue, ergo the men's players should receive more pay, the women's teams can argue that the school spends more to market men's basketball, leading to the difference in revenue generation between the two. Ultimately, this may lead to women student-athletes getting a more or less equal share of the revenue as the men student-athletes. If that's the case, I can see the number of available student-athlete slots is likely to go down overall, possibly leading to a downsizing of football teams from 105 players (of which about 85 are on scholarship) to something more akin to the 53 of the NFL. This could also mean more top end (five-stars, four-stars and high three-star recruits) talent could be distributed among more schools, even as some schools drop their football programs.
Also, once schools pay student-athletes directly, the fiction about the latter not being employees of the former will be fully eliminated. This means the cases saying student-athletes couldn't unionize are likely to be overturned. Once student-athletes can unionize, they'll likely demand a greater share of the revenue (maybe something closer to the 48%-52% revenue split seen in the NBA collective bargaining agreement).
Basically, this settlement could very well entirely upend the entire landscape of college sports as we know it. Obviously, my prognostications above may not come to pass, especially with respect to Title IX, as I suspect there will be significant pushes by the universities to change how Title IX is applied once student-athletes are paid employees.
This paragraph is what really attracted my attention:
"The settlement would come with a corresponding commitment from conferences and schools to share revenue with athletes moving forward, sources said. The settlement would establish a framework for power conferences to share revenue with their athletes in the future. Sources have told ESPN that schools are anticipating a ceiling of nearly $20 million per year for athlete revenue share moving forward. (That figure is derived from a formula that's expected to be, per sources, 22% of a revenue metric that's still being discussed, which is set to be based on various revenue buckets. It would be up to the schools to share that much.)"
Assuming schools will be paying 20% (or more) of their revenue to student athletes, this suggests those with more revenue will be able to pay each student-athlete more. But at the same time, it's unlikely the schools will want to pay the student-athletes in non-revenue generating sports (basically, anything not football and men's basketball) much, if anything. But that could run afoul of Title IX, especially where basketball is concerned, as the disparity in pay could be a form of sexual discrimination since both men and women's basketball players perform the same function. Even if a school were to argue that men's basketball brings in more revenue, ergo the men's players should receive more pay, the women's teams can argue that the school spends more to market men's basketball, leading to the difference in revenue generation between the two. Ultimately, this may lead to women student-athletes getting a more or less equal share of the revenue as the men student-athletes. If that's the case, I can see the number of available student-athlete slots is likely to go down overall, possibly leading to a downsizing of football teams from 105 players (of which about 85 are on scholarship) to something more akin to the 53 of the NFL. This could also mean more top end (five-stars, four-stars and high three-star recruits) talent could be distributed among more schools, even as some schools drop their football programs.
Also, once schools pay student-athletes directly, the fiction about the latter not being employees of the former will be fully eliminated. This means the cases saying student-athletes couldn't unionize are likely to be overturned. Once student-athletes can unionize, they'll likely demand a greater share of the revenue (maybe something closer to the 48%-52% revenue split seen in the NBA collective bargaining agreement).
Basically, this settlement could very well entirely upend the entire landscape of college sports as we know it. Obviously, my prognostications above may not come to pass, especially with respect to Title IX, as I suspect there will be significant pushes by the universities to change how Title IX is applied once student-athletes are paid employees.
