During a significant gathering of college athletes in Charlotte, Sydney Moore and Sabrina Ootsburg found themselves grappling with the impact of a newly approved $2.8 billion NCAA settlement by a federal judge. Amidst the celebratory atmosphere, they recognized the far-reaching implications beyond immediate financial gain for athletes.
Moore recalled a Division I football player expressing excitement about impending payments. She cautioned him, questioning the potential adverse effects on women’s sports teams, despite acknowledging the possibility of exaggeration. This sentiment arises from the agreement, which intends to distribute revenue directly to athletes, albeit primarily benefiting a select few and potentially threatening other sports programs’ sustainability.
Participating schools can allocate up to $20.5 million yearly, effective July 1, predominantly towards high-revenue sports like football. Concerns arise about the future of non-revenue sports, such as track and field, as Ootsburg, a senior at Belmont, worries about the broader impact on athletes.
“My initial reaction was to weigh the positives and negatives. What are the implications for me?” Ootsburg pondered. Her anxiety deepened upon realizing that 75% to 85% of allocated funds would likely go to football, questioning the remaining amount’s adequacy for covering essential needs like facilities and basic provisions.
Moore, having completed her eligibility by playing volleyball at Syracuse University, shares similar apprehensions. She highlights that female athletes often prioritize sustaining or enhancing their current sporting experience over monetary gain. The need to personally finance necessities like insurance and training equipment, should funds be insufficient, illustrates their fears.
Both Moore and Ootsburg observed a troubling lack of awareness among athletes about these changes. Many athletes at AthleteCon in Charlotte were ignorant of the transformation occurring within college sports due, in part, to the complexity of the matter.
Ootsburg mentioned the difficulty athletes face in grasping the intricacies of the settlement and the absence of comprehensive briefing, while some coaches like Mike White of Texas softball refer to this scenario as “the great unknown,” acknowledging uncharted territory in college sports.
Another dimension of this settlement involves its implications for walk-ons. Jake Rimmel, a former member of Virginia Tech’s cross-country team, highlighted the challenges faced by non-scholarship athletes who, like him, were cut as schools awaited settlement approval. Although reinstatement opportunities exist, these athletes face an uncertain future without guaranteed roster spots.
Rimmel expressed frustration over finding scant information on roster regulations amidst the broader narrative focusing on revenue-sharing and NIL. He emphasizes the pressing concern of walk-ons’ futures, hoping for decisions that recognize those who were cut.
As Rimmel ponders his path ahead, he underscores the prevailing confusion shared by athletes like Moore and Ootsburg, searching for clarity amidst transformative changes in college sports.