When 2025 arrives, so will the end of the amateur athlete era in college sports. Long held by outdated notions of participation for pride and scholarships, the concept of amateurism is being swept away as college athletics are about to undergo monumental financial changes.
The demise of amateurism has been years in the making, driven by the growing multi-billion dollar revenues generated primarily from football and basketball. Numerous players have already begun profiting from licensing agreements for their names, images, and likenesses (NIL), particularly since the Supreme Court's landmark 2021 decision allowing such compensations. The changes have, until now, occurred haphazardly, the result of various state laws and individual institutional regulations without centralized oversight.
The final blow to the traditional amateur model is looming with the approval of a $2.8 billion lawsuit settlement, expected on April 7, which permits schools to pay athletes directly—a notable departure from the historical concept of collegiate athletics. David Schnase, the NCAA's vice president for academic and membership affairs, remarked, "You can use the word 'pro,' you can use the word 'amateur,' you can attach whatever moniker you want to it, but those are just labels." He emphasized the importance of experiences and circumstances, which have drastically changed.
No one disputes the idea of college athletes receiving compensation for their contributions to the lucrative sports industry, which generates billions from TV contracts, tickets, and merchandise. Yet, concerns remain over who benefits most from this financial influx. Shocking figures have emerged—top quarterback recruit Bryce Underwood reportedly joined Michigan due to financial backing from Oracle founder Larry Ellison, and basketball player A.J. Dybantsa is heading to BYU with promises of $7 million. For every success story, there are also those like Matthew Sluka at UNLV, who left after unable to secure promised payments, and Beau Pribula, who opted to leave Penn State rather than wait for opportunities amid shifting dynamics.
The current compensation model sees players receiving funds through donor-funded collectives rather than school paychecks. With the impending approval of the settlement, schools will regain control over payments, anticipated to streamline and clarify compensation processes. Jeff Kessler, the plaintiffs' attorney, noted this shift would improve transparency: "If anything, having the schools handling all the payments is only going to improve the system." Currently reported data from the NCAA shows significant income disparity among players. For example, average earnings for football and basketball players hover around $38,000, but the median income is only $1,328, indicating how big contracts skew the average.
Another alarming finding is the gender earnings gap: average earnings for women athletes are significantly lower, with women's sports providing far less funding than men's—$8,624 versus $33,321. The divide becomes even starker for basketball, where male players average $56,000 compared to just $11,500 for women. The impending changes to the revenue structure may also negatively impact non-revenue sports, such as swimming or field hockey, as institutions prioritize payments to star athletes, which could lead to cuts for smaller programs.
So where will the funding for these athletes come from? Not all universities boast wealthy benefactors like Ellison. So far, athletic directors have increasingly pleaded with alumni for donations, and fans might soon find themselves facing increased ticket prices or surcharges due to this shifting financial responsibility. Nels Popp, sports business professor at the University of North Carolina, reflects on fan engagement: “I don’t know if fans have this really great love for the idea of 100% pure amateurism. I think they care more about the colors and logos than the compensation of the players.”
The last significant challenge to amateurism occurred during the 1980s as the Olympics transitioned from ostensibly amateur athletes to recognizing full-time professionals. This shift underscored the premise: those who contribute to the sports spectacle deserve to share its financial rewards. College sports now face similar discussions about transparency and representation as athletes push for player associations to address inequities.
While the NCAA admits the need to pay players, it remains resistant against formally designizing college athletes as employees, fearing legal complications and potential risks to the financial stability of college sports. Optimists posit we may be witnessing the beginning of major changes to the frameworks around collegiate athletics.
“At some point, I think people might have to understand maybe college athletes don’t go to college anymore,” Popp cautioned. “Or they don’t go to class during the season.” Will anyone actually care as long as the players wear the right logos? These discussions signal the end of amateurism as we know it, ushering college sports rapidly toward the future.
