Updating the playbook: Paying the athletes

by

Sports

This is part 2 of a 2-part series examining the rapidly changing landscape of college sports. Read Part 1, The New Playbook here.

Ty Davis didn’t just want to play college basketball; he wanted to do it at the highest level possible.

The former Mountain Brook High School star had a host of options, including power conference and mid-major offers, but he found a home in Omaha, Nebraska, at Creighton University. Now as a rising sophomore guard, Davis is not only living out his basketball dreams; he’s adjusting to a rapidly evolving world of college athletics.

“The reason I chose Creighton was because of how amazing the coaching staff was … All of the players were very similar to myself, and I could see myself fitting in with them really well,” Davis said. “The community and how much Omaha loves Creighton basketball was a big factor, too.”

His first year on campus brought milestone moments — from starting games to competing in March Madness — and bonds with teammates. But it also brought challenges — on and off the court.

“Honestly, my experience has been pretty high the entire time,” he said. “I would say a low point would be when I had to leave home and my family … Whenever I was able to adjust to that is when everything started to kind of make sense and Omaha started to feel like home.”

Becoming a college basketball player and a college student is one thing, but now there are the additional pressures of doing so in a new world. The transfer portal has caused a spike in player movement from year to year, and players are now able to profit off their name, image and likeness.

Like many college athletes, Davis has embraced NIL opportunities. But he acknowledges the need for better structure.

“Getting paid like this is going to set us up for life,” he said. “We are very thankful and blessed to be getting paid and to play the game that we love …. But I am not blind to the fact that the transfer portal is getting out of hand, and I believe there should be some rules put in place to help police it.”

THE GAME JUST CHANGED

If you played Division I college sports in the last decade — or your kid did — this summer, money’s coming.

Not from boosters. Not from collectives. From the university itself.

On June 14, a federal judge finalized House v. NCAA, a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that shatters the 119-year model of amateurism. For the first time, schools can pay their athletes directly — not for appearances, not through shell groups — but straight from university revenue.

If you are a fan of college sports, the games are now unlike anything you’ve known.

And it starts now.

SIDEBAR: House vs. NCAA Settlement Explained

WHO GETS PAID – AND HOW

The House settlement triggers two historic changes:

Backpay: Any Division I athlete who competed between 2016 and 2024 can file for compensation. Payouts will depend on sport, tenure and school revenue — with football and men’s basketball expected to receive the largest shares.

Revenue Sharing: Starting this fall, schools can pay current athletes up to $20.5 million annually. The cap will rise each year over the 10-year agreement. Most schools are expected to split it like this:

  • 75% to football
  • 15% to men’s basketball
  • 5% to women’s basketball
  • 5% to all other sports

This is not NIL 2.0. This is something else entirely.

NIL was always about outside money — sponsors, side hustles, booster funds. The House settlement puts the money on campus. Schools will now pay athletes from the same pool used for coach salaries, facilities and scholarships.

That makes it bigger. And messier.

Only the Power 4 conferences — SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 — were named in the suit. But all Division I schools must contribute to the backpay fund, even if they’ve never had a single NIL deal. Many smaller schools are already trimming rosters, adjusting scholarships and revisiting budgets. Some athletes will get paid. Others may get cut.

‘TRANSFORMATIVE LEGISLATION’

Birmingham entrepreneur and athlete advocate Jim Cavale has been tracking this shift from the beginning.

“In just the first year — from July 2021 to July 2022 — we tracked $350 million in NIL activity,” Cavale said. “And 90% of that was donor-driven funds funneled through collectives to pay athletes to play.”

Now, he says, things are even murkier.

“The biggest issue athletes face is confusing and misleading contracts,” Cavale said. “These so-called NIL deals are often performance-based agreements in disguise.”

ESPN national analyst Tom Luginbill sees the same storm building.

“This is the most transformative legislation in college sports in the last 15 years, and it dropped with no guardrails,” he said. “[Resource-rich] programs like Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia can do whatever they want. Most others can’t.”

And he’s worried.

“What’s coming is this: players getting paid big money, surrounded by bad actors. Agents want 20–30%. A kid enters the portal, takes bad advice, spends the money — and doesn’t go pro. That’s the reality.”

NEXT: CONGRESS AND COURTS

Just days after the House ruling, a bipartisan group in Congress introduced the SCORE Act — a bill that would:

  • Cap revenue-sharing and standardize disclosures
  • Pre-empt state NIL laws
  • Create a federal enforcement commission
  • Affirm that college athletes are not employees

That last point might be the whole game.

The NCAA’s biggest fear isn’t payment; it’s employment. If athletes are ruled to be employees, everything changes: benefits, unions, workers’ compensation, labor law. The House deal opened the door to paychecks. Congress is now trying to close it before anyone says the E-word.

But Cavale says the conversation still leaves out the people it claims to protect.

“These are being structured as NIL, not employment — and there’s still no agent regulation, no contract standards,” he said. “The athlete’s voice is missing. What’s really needed is collective bargaining.”

Meanwhile, legal uncertainty continues. The House settlement is not the final word — and may not withstand future challenges.

In June, eight current and former female athletes filed a Title IX lawsuit challenging the revenue-sharing model, arguing that its disproportionate distribution to men’s sports violates federal gender equity laws. More suits are likely. Title IX, employment law and due process could all play a role in shaping — or unraveling — the current plan.

NCAA leaders say that’s why congressional intervention is critical. The proposed SCORE Act would codify House into law, protect it from further litigation and preempt conflicting state-level NIL rules. But despite years of lobbying, no federal college sports law has ever passed. For now, the policy landscape remains a moving target.

WELCOME TO NIL GO

On June 17, a new layer of regulation arrived: NIL Go — a clearinghouse overseen by the Collegiate Sports Commission and run by Deloitte.

Athletes must now report any deal over $600. Each gets reviewed for “fair market value.” If Deloitte flags it as inflated, it can be denied or sent to arbitration. There is no legal standard for that value. No consistent appeal process. Just a new filter between athletes and the opportunities they chase.

And that’s happening as university-issued paychecks are set to hit.

The result? Confusion, whiplash — and change.

Athletes like Davis are currently weathering NIL, the transfer portal and scholarship uncertainty. Now they face something even stranger: a paycheck from the school for which they play.

What that means — and how long it lasts — is still in question.

The checks start July 1.

The system? Still up for grabs.

Who knows where it goes from here.“With the transfer portal and NIL being fairly new in the college world, it has changed the landscape of college athletics immensely,” Davis said.