College Sports’ Revenue Ruse: It’s Time to Stop the Unsustainable Spending Charade

The next time you hear a peep of financial woe emanating from the gilded halls of college sports, stifle the urge to offer sympathy and instead, let out a hearty laugh. They’ll spin a tale of woe, blaming "greedy" players for somehow derailing a pristine, amateur landscape populated by selfless administrators and devoted boosters. They’ll paint a picture of athletes raiding the coffers, leaving the hallowed institutions of higher learning destitute.

If I possessed a mere thousand dollars for every time a college football coach declared the current state of college athletics "unsustainable," I’d be in the financial position to single-handedly fund Luka Dončić’s contract extension. The hyperbole is rampant, the self-serving narratives tiresome.

And speaking of contracts, let’s delve into the realm of the truly absurd. Just last week, the University of Oregon, in a move that defies logic, decided to extend the contract of head coach Dan Lanning. This is the same Dan Lanning who, in his most recent high-profile appearance, watched his team, ranked number one in the nation, get utterly dismantled to the tune of a 34-0 deficit in the College Football Playoff Rose Bowl quarterfinal.

Oregon, in its infinite wisdom, deemed this performance worthy of a nearly $11 million per year contract extension over six years, guaranteeing Lanning a staggering $65.4 million. This for a coach who, frankly, has lost far too many games of consequence during his tenure.

I place no blame on Lanning, or his agent, for extracting every possible dollar from Oregon. Their job is to maximize their client’s earning potential, and they’ve clearly succeeded. The blame lies squarely with Oregon, and with the 69 other Power Four conference schools (including Oregon State and Washington State) who have been feigning poverty ever since the NCAA, in a moment of breathtaking ineptitude, opened Pandora’s Box by simultaneously allowing Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals and free player movement in 2021.

That decision, to this day, remains one of the dumbest moves in a long and storied history of dumb NCAA decisions.

The true culprits are these 70 schools that will rake in an estimated $7.4 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2025-26 and are projected to amass a staggering $10.5 billion by 2034-35, according to a declaration filed last week in support of the multi-billion dollar House settlement. Yet, they still claim they can’t figure out how to fairly compensate the players who generate the vast majority of that wealth without insisting that the sky is falling.

They resist paying players while simultaneously expanding the postseason, already saturated and competing fiercely with the NFL for television viewership. They’ve cannibalized their own, allowing the Pac-12 conference to disintegrate and leaving the ACC and Big 12 scrambling for whatever scraps remain.

The NCAA and the attorneys representing the players are currently awaiting final approval of the House settlement, which would effectively sanction "pay for play" through NIL, from U.S. District Court judge Claudia Wilken. In a twist of irony that could not be more blatant, Wilken is scheduled to hold a hearing on April 7, coinciding with the Final Four national championship game – the very tournament that generates an average of $1.1 billion annually for the NCAA through an eight-year contract with media rights partners CBS and Turner.

You simply couldn’t invent this level of absurdity.

The declaration filed last week by economics expert Dan Rascher, a veteran of athlete compensation lawsuits against the NCAA, confirmed the exorbitant cash flow coursing through the 70 Power conference schools. However, the details are crucial.

The House settlement player pool, essentially a salary cap, is calculated based on a percentage of eight revenue streams, including media rights, ticket sales, and bowl/playoff game revenue. However, the settlement numbers are not based on the entirety of each athletic department’s revenue.

For example, the University of Texas’ total operating athletic revenue for the 2024 fiscal year was a monumental $331.9 million. However, the figure used for the player pool calculation, based on those eight categories, was a significantly lower $172.1 million. Similarly, the University of Cincinnati’s pool calculation was just $38.8 million.

Under the terms of the agreement, the total of these eight revenue streams from all 70 Power conference schools is aggregated, and the players would receive a percentage of that combined revenue, expected to be between $20 million and $23 million per school in the first year after the settlement. This amount is guaranteed to increase by at least 4% in each of the following two years.

The purpose of equalizing the spending potential for all schools is to prevent powerhouses like Texas from outspending smaller programs like Cincinnati on player compensation. Remember, this $20-23 million represents the maximum amount schools are allowed to allocate to players across all men’s and women’s programs for NIL purposes – and even that spending is optional. Schools are not obligated to spend the full amount.

Which brings us full circle to Lanning and every other coach and assistant coach who signed lucrative deals this offseason. Steve Sarkisian received a pay raise, bringing his salary to $10.8 million for this season. Bill Belichick landed a $10 million per year deal to become North Carolina’s football coach.

Jim Knowles secured a $3.1 million annual salary to leave Ohio State and become Penn State’s defensive coordinator – a figure exceeding the salaries of 74 FBS head coaches last season.

And yet, despite this extravagant spending, we continue to hear the same tired refrain from coaches, athletic directors, and conference commissioners, lamenting an "unsustainable" environment in college athletics.

Consider this: an association of 70 schools, having willingly separated themselves from the rest of college sports, boasting a combined budget of $7.4 billion for the academic year, is attempting to portray player salaries as the primary financial threat.

Perhaps, just perhaps, they should consider curbing their insatiable appetite for "facility improvements" that drive up debt service. Or, if they absolutely must have new stadiums, arenas, ballparks, and opulent stand-alone football and basketball facilities to impress recruits, they could start by ceasing the practice of paying coaches millions of dollars to not coach.

They could stop funneling millions to high school players who haven’t even taken a single snap in college football. They could eliminate the unnecessary general manager positions, whose responsibilities can and should be handled by the head coach and athletic director.

They could scale back the bloated coaching staffs of 40 individuals and drastically reduce the exorbitant recruiting budgets. They could discontinue the practice of coaches arriving at high school games in helicopters simply to appear more impressive than their competitors in the eyes of a 17-year-old prospect.

College sports seems utterly clueless as to how it arrived at this predicament.

Dan Lanning, for the record, is 3-4 against rivals Washington and Oregon State, 1-1 in conference championship games, and 0-1 in CFP games. And he just secured a $60 million payday, regardless of his performance over the next six seasons.

There, in plain sight, is the real definition of "unsustainable." And it’s certainly nothing to laugh about. It’s a symptom of a system prioritizing everything except the athletes themselves.