The impact of NCAA reforms: Hard choices ahead for youth sports parents
For the parents who pay for their kid to play in America’s for-profit youth sports system with the prayer that maybe they will be good enough to be offered scholarship assistance in college, keep dreaming, but more importantly, start saving.
The changes in the NCAA model will have a trickle down effect to the non-revenue and Olympic sports, which will vary from school to school. It ultimately could result in a reduction of teams and spots available for their kid to keep playing.
The House v. NCAA settlement is scheduled for final court approval on April 7. The settlement is expected to include a $20.5 million salary cap for schools to directly compensate student athletes, roster limits, and backpay for former players; all third-party NIL deals over $600 will have to be vetted by an independent clearinghouse.
How the last part will be regulated and enforced figures to be negotiated between Santa Claus and Godzilla.
The revenue sports will be fine. The non-revenue sports are going to take a hit.
“Finances are a big part of it. I don’t want to undermine that, but I don’t want to make that the tell-all of why a kid should or should not play a sport. For almost 30 years I didn’t have a kid on a full scholarship,” University of Louisville baseball coach Dan McDonnell said earlier this year before a tournament in Arlington.
“Or if I did it was very few. Many kids had to find ways, we all had jobs in the summer. I had many kids and families take out loans to make this experience for the value of what it is. I’m confident parents will find a way, but I have no idea how this will look in a couple of years.”
For the football player, basketball, volleyball player, and a few others, the scholarship opportunities will remain status quo to potentially more available. For the tennis player, the golfer, the swimmer, the sprinter and the rest of the sports that people play but don’t necessarily watch, landing a spot will be Darwinian.
NCAA sports & all of that money
No coach or athletic director is dumb enough to say the for-pay student-athlete experience is a bad evolution; they won’t say it because they don’t want it to affect recruiting.
More than a few have wondered aloud if all of this new money is used responsibly. Because they all know it’s not.
“Obviously the top players are going to be earning some money now, which is great for them to put into turning pro and starting their careers because you need to have some kind of money to do it properly,” former TCU tennis player Cam Norrie told the Star-Telegram earlier this year. Norrie is now an established pro player.
“The other aspect, it’s a little bit dangerous having these young athletes with all this money not knowing what the best thing to do is. I don’t think it’s that great to have all this money at that age if you’re not used to it, so it can be dangerous.
“It must be quite tough for the head coaches now to control the egos of the athletes, especially when they’re earning this kind of money.”
Correct. This includes coaches of Olympic sport teams that play in front moms, dads, family and friends.
The future of NCAA non-revenue sports
In the last two years NCAA Division I coaches of Olympic sports have told prospective recruits they’re not sure what they can offer. They only know it won’t be the same as previous generations.
Part of the proposed settlement will increase potential scholarship opportunities while imposing a cap on rosters. This translates to a dramatic reduction in opportunities for walk-on players, and likely subtracting other spots, too.
Ohio State said in a press release late last year that it expects its student athlete “population” to decrease by 150 people for the 2025-26 year.
There is a fear that this settlement will ultimately lead to a dramatic reduction in spots available, although no one knows for sure.
For the schools that have money to invest in athletics, the opportunities will be mostly the same, if not greater. The sports that generate real revenue and hefty media rights contracts will be fine. The big will grow bigger, and the wealthier will grow wealthier.
For the schools that don’t have quite as much, hard decisions will have to be made. There will be cuts, if not immediately but ultimately when the cost analysis is complete.
“I don’t know if the kids in this model that we currently have if they win long term. Long term, if we have to cut sports and cut other things, are the kids going to be the winners in this?” Smart said. “I don’t know. College sports has been around a long time and given many an opportunity and by all means I want them to make money, but what’s going on right now is not good.”
As tone deaf and disingenuous as the multi-million dollar football or basketball coach often sounds, all of them realize the power of an athletic scholarship can have on a young person and their family. No one in this flawed system wants to see those opportunities taken away.
And because all of them have spent their lives in sports, they recognize the power playing a game can have on a young person, even if they don’t make a dime in NIL or play in front of thousands of people.
“I don’t know the future. I think parents will find a way, and I hate that anything that deters kids from playing,” McDonnell said. “The value of playing a high school sport, there are a lot of health benefits to it. There are so many positives.”
The positives of playing won’t change.
The number of opportunities to play will.
And many of those opportunities will now have to be covered by the kid, a student loan, mom, or dad.
This story was originally published April 6, 2025 at 12:28 PM.
