Podcast Summary: The Gist – "Pay to Play: The NCAA’s Big Payout Era Begins"
Release Date: August 4, 2025
Hosts and Guests:
- Mike Pesca – Host of The Gist
- Gabe Feldman – Director of the Sports Law program at Tulane University and host of the Sports Wise podcast
Introduction: The Changing Landscape of College Football
Mike Pesca opens the episode by highlighting the pivotal shift in college football dynamics, emphasizing the transition from amateurism to professionalism within the NCAA framework. He introduces the central topic: the landmark settlement in the House vs. NCAA case and its implications for student-athletes and educational institutions.
"The NCAA knew that it couldn't win. All their lawsuits began allowing nil payments." (03:45)
The House vs. NCAA Settlement
Gabe Feldman delves into the specifics of the House vs. NCAA antitrust case, explaining that the NCAA agreed to a settlement of nearly $3 billion. This settlement mandates that each Division I school receives approximately $20.5 million to distribute among their current athletes.
"Every D1 school is allowed to spend $20.5 million on their current athletes any way they want to." (05:02)
Distribution of Funds:
- 60-70% allocated to football players
- 10-15% to men's basketball
- 5% to women's basketball
- The remaining funds distributed among other athletes, often resulting in negligible amounts for non-revenue sports.
"The majority of the money is going to football players, between 60 and 70 percent." (05:32)
NIL Deals and Transparency
Feldman distinguishes between two types of NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals:
- Traditional Endorsements: Deals with established brands like Nike or Under Armour, which are straightforward and regulated without additional scrutiny beyond reporting requirements.
- Boosters and Collectives: These deals undergo scrutiny by a new NCAA clearinghouse to ensure fairness and prevent excessive payments.
"If you’re paying somebody $20 million for one autograph, then we’re going to reject it." (07:34)
He also addresses the ongoing issue of transparency, noting that while schools must report NIL deals to the NCAA and Deloitte, these figures are not publicly disclosed. This maintains a level of secrecy around individual athlete compensation.
"There is no plan for public disclosure of these deals." (23:52)
Legal Challenges and Title IX Implications
The discussion shifts to potential legal challenges arising from the settlement. Feldman highlights concerns regarding Title IX, which mandates gender equity in educational programs, including athletics. The unequal distribution of funds—heavily favoring male sports like football and basketball—could trigger lawsuits alleging sex discrimination.
"There are likely going to be a series of Title IX suits claiming that it is against the law to pay male athletes 70 or 90 percent of the money, while the female athletes only get 10 or 15 percent." (12:42)
Feldman points out that Title IX was not designed with NIL payments in mind, raising questions about the legality of the current distribution model and its compliance with existing gender equity laws.
Impact on Non-Revenue Sports
A significant concern addressed is the potential cutting of non-revenue Olympic sports as schools reallocate their budgets to accommodate the $20.5 million NIL payments. Since many Olympic sports do not generate substantial revenue, they are at risk of being reduced or eliminated.
"We have already seen that the number is now 39 Olympic sports teams have been cut, which is over a thousand roster spots." (28:30)
Feldman warns that this trend could undermine the diversity of college athletics and diminish the pipeline for future Olympic athletes.
Ongoing and Future Legal Battles
Beyond the House vs. NCAA settlement, Feldman outlines other legal fronts:
- Class Action Lawsuits: Some athletes have opted out of the settlement to continue suing for greater compensation.
- Antitrust Challenges: Potential legal challenges to the NCAA’s cap on payments.
- Employment Cases: Claims that college athletes should be recognized as employees, entitling them to wages and benefits under labor laws.
"There's a group of plaintiffs out in a case in Colorado that are continuing to sue for the same thing that the NCAA just settled for." (19:13)
Practical Concerns and Unintended Consequences
The episode explores practical issues stemming from the settlement:
- Opacity in Compensation: Without public disclosure, athletes and schools remain unaware of exact payment distributions, potentially fostering resentment and inequality within teams.
- Under-the-Table Payments: There is a risk that boosters and third parties may continue to funnel money to athletes discreetly, circumventing the NCAA’s regulations.
- Operational Strain on Schools: Smaller institutions may struggle to meet the NIL cap without cutting programs, leading to a homogenization of athletic offerings favoring major revenue-generating sports.
"They are already being paid $20.5 million, but they're still going to be paid under the table from boosters and third parties." (31:37)
Progress and Remaining Injustices
In reflecting on the settlement’s fairness, Feldman acknowledges it as a step towards justice but notes that significant inequities persist. While high-revenue sports benefit, other athletes continue to face disparities, and new injustices may emerge as the system evolves.
"We've gone from injustice to more justice, but other injustices remain." (31:53)
Future Outlook: Professionalization and Beyond
Looking ahead, Feldman speculates on the future trajectory of college sports, including the possibility of major programs becoming for-profit entities separate from their universities. This shift could further professionalize college athletics but also exacerbate existing inequalities and legal challenges.
"We might be headed there, though. It is licensing the right to use the school's jersey and their athletes don't play, their athletes don't go to school, they're not students." (33:53)
Conclusion
Mike Pesca and Gabe Feldman conclude the episode by acknowledging the complexity of the NCAA’s settlement and its far-reaching implications for college sports. While notable progress has been made in compensating student-athletes, the path forward remains fraught with legal, ethical, and operational challenges.
"If you solve some of the problem, it's progress." (32:08)
Notable Quotes:
- "The NCAA knew that it couldn't win. All their lawsuits began allowing nil payments." – Mike Pesca (03:45)
- "Every D1 school is allowed to spend $20.5 million on their current athletes any way they want to." – Gabe Feldman (05:02)
- "We've gone from injustice to more justice, but other injustices remain." – Gabe Feldman (31:53)
This episode provides a comprehensive overview of the seismic changes in NCAA policies regarding athlete compensation, the nuanced legal battles that have shaped and will continue to influence the landscape, and the broader implications for college athletics’ future.