Future of College Sports: Revenue-Driven Changes Impact Niche Programs

In recent years, college sports have changed a lot, especially when it comes to paying student-athletes. Traditionally, revenue-generating sports like football and basketball have funded non-revenue sports, and a lot of people think that’s unfair.

Policy changes, lawsuits, and executive orders have started to shift this old setup. Now, everyone’s wondering what’s next for college athletics and if the whole system can even last.

The Financial Imbalance in College Sports

For decades, just a few sports at U.S. universities—mainly football and basketball—have brought in billions. Universities have used that money to support other sports that barely break even, like squash, water polo, and rowing.

Plenty of folks criticize this system. Football and basketball players, who are often Black and from lower-income families, generate huge profits but haven’t historically received any direct compensation.

Recent Policy Changes and Legal Battles

Recent court cases have upended college sports policies. The Supreme Court’s decision in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston said NCAA rules against athlete compensation violated antitrust law.

Now, student-athletes can get paid for their name, image, and likeness (NIL). On top of that, schools can directly pay athletes, up to $20.5 million per year each.

The Impact on Non-Revenue Sports

This shift toward paying athletes in revenue sports has made people in non-revenue sports pretty nervous. With limited athletic budgets, some schools have started cutting non-revenue sports to free up cash for football and basketball players.

It’s led to some tough decisions and real changes in the college sports world.

President Trump’s Executive Order

Trying to protect non-revenue sports, President Donald Trump signed an executive order saying scholarships and athletic opportunities in women’s and non-revenue sports must be preserved—and ideally expanded.

But it’s not so clear how much legal power this order really has. Title IX already requires equal athletic opportunities, but blanket protection for non-revenue sports might just keep a status quo that favors wealthier students.

The Economics of College Sports

The economics of college sports are in flux now that athletes can get paid. Top players at big programs can earn millions with endorsements, and schools are competing by offering direct payments.

This new reality casts doubt on whether non-revenue sports can survive financially.

The Role of Revenue-Generating Sports

Historically, football and basketball have subsidized other sports in university programs. But with new compensation rules, that money’s going straight to the athletes who bring in the revenue.

As a result, non-revenue sports are seeing budget cuts, and athletes in those programs are feeling the impact.

Arguments for and Against the Current System

Supporters say college sports boost school spirit, fitness, and teamwork. They also argue that college sports are a key training ground for future Olympians.

But critics think the traditional system hurts academics, since athletes often spend 30 hours a week on sports, leaving less time for schoolwork.

The Case for Reform

Some critics believe cutting non-revenue sports might actually help. Rather than giving admissions and scholarships based on athletic talent in niche sports, colleges could focus on admitting the most qualified students and offering them a solid education.

Financial aid could go to those who really need it, and students could still play sports as hobbies—just without scholarships or special perks.

The Future of College Athletics

No one really knows what’s next for college athletics. The move to pay revenue-generating athletes has already shaken up the old model.