College sports leaders are requesting Congressional support for antitrust protections, and they might have a valuable exchange: committing to funding their essential Olympic programs, which significantly contribute to Team USA’s talent pool.
According to four individuals familiar with the situation, discussions are underway with lawmakers, primarily Democrats, who are likely to provide crucial votes to enable legislation that faces some partisan resistance. This initiative aims to offer a lifeline to Olympic sports, which have historically fostered approximately 75% of American Olympians. However, such programs are now threatened by the financial fallout of a $2.8 billion settlement, paving the way for revenue sharing with college athletes. As this revenue flow begins, football and basketball are expected to absorb the majority, thanks to the burgeoning era of name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation.
Currently, the NCAA is seeking Congress’s intervention to override existing state-specific NIL laws, stave off athlete employment rights, and secure some antitrust protections. A contentious issue is the array of lawsuits aimed at disputing the NCAA’s policy requiring athletes to complete four seasons of eligibility within five years.
NCAA President Charlie Baker acknowledged, “While limited liability is a significant demand, ensuring a stable regulatory framework for upcoming generations is essential.” The complexity of passing new legislation is apparent, particularly with figures like Senator Richard Blumenthal advocating for true reform and transparency in college sports, emphasizing athlete welfare over preserving the NCAA’s authority.
In light of these challenges, one proposed solution involves incorporating guaranteed funding for college Olympic sports within the legislative framework. Such measures may potentially involve federal grants to support these critical programs financially. Baker remains open to discussions, valuing these sports for their intrinsic importance.
The financial landscape for Olympic sports is rapidly evolving, with Division I schools expected to distribute up to $20.5 million each in athlete revenue over the next year. Additional funds are earmarked for scholarships like those at the University of Michigan, which plans to invest $6.2 million. As these financial commitments climb, colleges must identify new funding sources.
Since early 2024, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee noted a reduction of around 40 Division I Olympic sports programs, albeit with 18 new additions. Notably, only a few cuts have impacted programs from the Power Four conferences, yet other schools grapple with balancing roster limitations while maintaining sufficient scholarships.
Despite these challenges, the USOPC maintains optimism that leading talent-generating schools, such as Stanford—which garnered enough medals to rank 11th overall at the Paris Games—will sustain strong Olympic sports programs. Confidence stems from bipartisan Congressional support for these programs.
For legislation to succeed, it must advance past a narrowly divided House and acquire at least seven Democratic votes in the Senate to overcome potential filibusters. Senators Blumenthal, Cory Booker, and Jerry Moran previously advocated for a bill offering antitrust protections coupled with initiatives such as a health and safety trust fund for athletes experiencing long-term injuries. Under the NCAA’s revised guarantees, schools must now cover sports-related medical costs for two years post-athlete departure.
Baker noted that Congress previously emphasized institutional reform, prompting the NCAA to address several key concerns. The pivotal question remains whether the made adjustments, alongside any new commitments to Olympic sports, will suffice to sway hesitant Democrats in favor of restricting college athletes’ legal recourse.