Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

With Profit Sharing on the Horizon, What Happens If a School Says No?

Posted on 3/2/26 at 6:14 pm
Posted by captdalton
Member since Feb 2021
22029 posts
Posted on 3/2/26 at 6:14 pm
So schools can share up to $20ish million with athletes this season. Who is going to be the first to say no? And how far back will it set them? Will it devastate rosters? Cripple recruiting?

What will schools who show a loss do? Try to reallocate? Beg donors? Send the athletes a bill?
Posted by captdalton
Member since Feb 2021
22029 posts
Posted on 3/2/26 at 6:41 pm to
So P4 schools are required to pay both current athletes and former athletes back pay. How are the programs that are already losing money going to come up with an additional $20.5 million? It is expect to rise into the mid $30 million dollar range over the next decade. How are programs going to pay for it? Cut support staff? Slash non-revenue sports? Sell assets? Try to monetize every sponsorship they can? Use taxpayer dollars to pay football players? Raise ticket prices? Raise student fees? Some of all?

It fires the fanbase up to say “we will make the playoffs and generate an extra $20 million in revenue!!!” But the reality is not everyone can make the playoffs.
This post was edited on 3/2/26 at 9:23 pm
Posted by ColoradoAg
Colorado
Member since Sep 2011
26607 posts
Posted on 3/2/26 at 8:15 pm to
Any school that says no will be not competitive. Probably pushed down to the cellar.
Posted by captdalton
Member since Feb 2021
22029 posts
Posted on 3/2/26 at 8:40 pm to
So then it will snowball. If you are already broke and in the cellar, why would you want to spend an additional $20+ million just to hit the status quo?

Schools will have to absorb this new additional expense. For most departments they are looking at around a 10% increase in expenses due to profit sharing. Only 10-12 of the 16 SEC athletic departments generate a profit each year. Revenues are at record levels, but so are expenses. Here is a graph of SEC athletic department profitability from 2018-2022.



If you look at the 2022 number, 8 out of 11 schools were profitable (Vandy is not listed, they are private and financials are not public). However, if each school had an additional $20.5 million dollar expense then only 1 program would have been profitable.

The money is going to have to come from somewhere. And big schools aren’t immune. The Texas athletic department reported a $23.3 million dollar loss for FY25. That was without paying $20.5 million in profit sharing.

It will be interesting to see how athletic departments handle it. I bet a lot of non-revenue programs are about to take it on the chin, or somewhere else.
This post was edited on 3/2/26 at 8:42 pm
Posted by ColoradoAg
Colorado
Member since Sep 2011
26607 posts
Posted on 3/2/26 at 8:43 pm to
Maybe don't hire 16M coaches? 3M in a women's sport that doesn't even make enough to pay the coach. Shall I continue?
Posted by captdalton
Member since Feb 2021
22029 posts
Posted on 3/2/26 at 8:48 pm to
And where are all the people who complain there are never any real discussion topics here? Profit sharing is going to have a big impact on how athletic departments operate. I fear many uniforms may begin to resemble this.

Posted by captdalton
Member since Feb 2021
22029 posts
Posted on 3/2/26 at 8:50 pm to
quote:

Maybe don't hire 16M coaches? 3M in a women's sport that doesn't even make enough to pay the coach. Shall I continue?


So you are saying they should save money by hiring bargain bin coaches and deciding on which sports to sacrifice? I think many will adopt this strategy.
Posted by tBrand
Member since Oct 2022
3426 posts
Posted on 3/2/26 at 8:53 pm to
quote:

And big schools aren’t immune. The Texas athletic department reported a $23.3 million dollar loss for FY25. That was without paying $20.5 million in profit sharing.

Texas only received $12M from the SEC for '24-25, and will receive the full ~$80M for this year. Texas is immune to whatever money issues befall the rest of you plebs.
Posted by ColoradoAg
Colorado
Member since Sep 2011
26607 posts
Posted on 3/2/26 at 8:54 pm to
A&M already has. It is what Alberts was brought in to do. Clean the red off the ledgers and prepare for this future. He's been remarkably successful given Fisher, and that Maryland coach that has fallen off a cliff. Bucky was cheap, as was the volleyball coach, the women's basketball coach, etc ...

A&M sports looks fiscally responsible for probably the first time ever.
Posted by captdalton
Member since Feb 2021
22029 posts
Posted on 3/2/26 at 9:08 pm to
quote:

Texas only received $12M from the SEC for '24-25, and will receive the full ~$80M for this year. Texas is immune to whatever money issues befall the rest of you plebs.


So did boosters cover that loss? Did Texas raise ticket prices? Increase student fees? It came from somewhere.

I assume you believe Texas donors have an open checkbook and money will never run short.
Posted by ukraine_rebel
North Mississippi
Member since Oct 2012
3793 posts
Posted on 3/3/26 at 7:32 am to
With logos their football fields will resemble the flag of the state of Maryland than grass.
Posted by makersmark1
earth
Member since Oct 2011
20808 posts
Posted on 3/3/26 at 7:50 am to
quote:

With logos their football fields will resemble the flag of the state of Maryland than grass.


There was a pre-conference basketball game at some court that could change sponsors at timeouts.

Most ADs are probably looking at this type of thing.

Everything that can be monetized, will be monetized.

Every play “brought to you by”. Every player NASCAR’ed to the max.

You will be charged for everything they can think of and more.

Posted by Capn_Bevo
Austin
Member since Jan 2019
1130 posts
Posted on 3/3/26 at 7:57 am to
quote:

I assume you believe Texas donors have an open checkbook and money will never run short.

Posted by FlyDownTheField83
Auburn AL
Member since Dec 2021
1435 posts
Posted on 3/3/26 at 8:15 am to
Interesting thread, several of your questions are going to play out in reality in this new landscape of college athletics.

We have already seen some athletic departments scrambling to cover the deficit; big increases in ticket prices, scheduling games in larger off-campus venues to generate more income, etc….
Posted by twk
Wichita Falls, Texas
Member since Jul 2011
2896 posts
Posted on 3/3/26 at 8:27 am to
In the SEC, the increase in the TV contract revenue (which we saw this year) is just about enough to cover the revenue sharing. So, if you were breaking even before 2024, you should be able to cover the revenue sharing without it being a back breaker. What I think is more likely with SEC schools is that you will see some of them not fully fund every roster spot in every sport. Even in football, some of the wealthier schools have decided that it doesn't make sense to go to 105 on the roster if you have to decrease your revenue sharing with key players as a result.

Where you are really going to see this bite is in the ACC and Big XII. Those schools are in a tough position. Funding revenue sharing for football would be job one for any school that hopes to stay competitive financially, but if they do the calculus and decide they just can't swing it, you will probably see some not fully fund revenue sharing. And you will definitely see these schools cutting corners in other areas. For example, I suspect no more than a handful (if any) of ACC schools will provide the full complement of 34 (?) baseball scholarship (up from 11.7 under the old rules).
Posted by captdalton
Member since Feb 2021
22029 posts
Posted on 3/3/26 at 8:56 am to
I think schools like Big 10 member Rutgers are going to have to make some hard choices. They lost $78 million last year. There are some surprising big names that lost money in fy25.

Oklahoma: -$43.7 million (like Texas largely due to conference swap, but they still have to make it up).
UCLA: -$21.5 million
North Carolina: -$15 million (despite record high revenue.)

Alabama showed a $53 million profit, but lost over $40 million in sports other than football and basketball.

And some schools are in a huge hole. Florida State athletics has $437 million in athletic debt.

It will be interesting to see which teams go all in on which sports. Because even for the top revenue schools they won’t be able to afford it all.

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on X and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter