Amateurism in college sports is over. What replaces it is strictly business: starting July 1, institutions will be allowed to pay student-athletes directly. It’s a money game now, and for schools with smaller athletic programs like GW, the odds are stacked against them.
A federal judge approved the House v. NCAA settlement last Friday, closing a five-year legal battle over the monetization of college athletics. The agreement includes a 10-year revenue-sharing plan allowing schools in the Power Five conference — and any Division I schools that opt in — to distribute up to $20.5 million per year from their athletic department to their athletes. The distribution pool is estimated to increase by at least 4 percent each year and will rise to $32.9 million by 2034-35.
The decision to pay athletes is essentially the start of a quasi-professional league and possibly the death of college sports. The National Collegiate Athletic Association was meant to maintain the “high purpose of education.” But direct compensation isn’t an academic scholarship or a sponsorship — it’s a paycheck. Direct investment in athletic recruits may shift the perception of athletes from students to financial assets.
Under the revenue-sharing model, schools could practically buy their whole roster. The settlement favors the wealthiest programs, like Ohio State University and the University of Texas at Austin, while smaller schools fall behind. GW spent just over $31 million on its athletics program in fiscal year 2023, compared to Ohio State’s roughly $200 million allocation. It’s a financial gap that will be tough to close for mid-major programs.
GW may not have top ranked athletics, but it offers a rare niche for recruits who prioritize long-term educational value over powerhouse programs. Those same athletes could soon be swayed by large financial packages. The decision to commit to a college may now be contingent on finding the highest bidder.
Whether GW opts into the settlement or not, it will feel the shockwaves. Two clearly defined groups could emerge from the House decision: Schools who pay their athletes, and those who don’t. The larger athletic programs will be able siphon off the best players, leaving smaller programs as mere fodder for championship teams. With extreme disparities between college leagues, games may very well soon feel like the Tune Squad versus the Monstars.
The losers of the House v. NCAA settlement may seem to be lower-ranked conferences, but the true loss is the spirit that defines college sports. Fans rarely watch games for perfection — we root for our teams because they represent our community. The charm of college athletics risks being lost if players are only there to chase the best price. After all, Hoosiers would have made a terrible movie if their coach just rented a million-dollar team for the state championship.
Athletes chasing the best price could make the NCAA transfer portal more active than ever. The settlement turns what was once a game of glory, tradition and honor into a purely transactional environment. After the 2019 ruling allowing athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness, former Alabama coach Nick Saban said it’s not “the spirit of college athletics,” warning players would be driven by business, not school pride.
Before the house ruling, NIL has served as a replacement for financial opportunities in college sports by allowing student-athletes to profit through third-party deals. GW has their own NIL collective, Friends of George collective, that has spent $4 million overall on its men’s basketball program. But GW’s NIL collective pales in comparison to athletes at other schools who are making millions of dollars alone in NIL offers. In an interview from 2023, men’s basketball Head Coach Chris Caputo acknowledged recruits and transfers considering other schools for better NIL earning opportunities.
The good news is, many GW students aren’t expecting championships when it comes to college sports. And while our student section may be lacking in size, those who fill the Smith Center seats show that GW may have some school spirit left. Indeed, some students may actually be invested in the team. In reality, many GW students simply want the novelty of attending a college game.
If the University is to be outbid by athletic powerhouses with large budgets, they must find another way to attract recruits. Leaning into the low-stakes charm of it all may be a good start. Perhaps GW’s athletic programs are where student-athletes maximize their college experience. Financial offers are enticing, but so is a program that invests in you both on and off the field. With an athletic program focused on boosting long-term growth, GW can provide an environment to optimize athletic potential.
College sports programs can trade players in hopes of building the best team, or they can build their team from the ground up. In choosing the latter, GW can be the homegrown team.
Madie Turley, a rising junior majoring in English and creative writing, is the contributing opinions editor.