College Coaches Associations Lobby For Minimum Spending For Olympic Sports After House vs. NCAA Settlement

For months, Sam Seemes had begun to believe the groundbreaking House vs. NCAA Settlement would change non-revenue sports forever.

Then in early June, that idea was realized when Federal District Judge Claudia Wilken sealed the deal’s fate, signing off on the multi-billion dollar settlement containing three separate federal antitrust lawsuits centered around the earning limitations of NCAA athletes.

With just about $2.8 billion dollars in back payments to be paid to former athletes since 2016 and an annual revenue-sharing cap up to $20.5 million dollars accessible to Division I college athletes starting on July 1, the future of college sports changed in one fell swoop. A new oversight committee, the College Sports Commission, was even formed to oversee spending requirements and regulations.

By then, however, Seemes had seen the writing on the wall.

The CEO of the United States Track and Field and Cross Country Coaches Association had been working tirelessly with other national coaching networks to build language around what the NCAA vs. House settlement would mean for non-revenue sports. Included within the deal were new capped roster sizes – 17 for cross country and 45 for track and field – and a significant expansion of scholarship limits, from 12.6 for men’s and 18 for women’s programs up to 45 for both. An amendment to the settlement included rules for grandfathering athletes into those roster limits and retaining previous scholarships after the new rule is put into effect.

On June 7, four national coaching associations, including the USTFCCCA, issued a joint statement pleading for clarification around Title IX protections and student-athlete employment classification, calling for Congress to intervene.

“We feel this is a landmine that, if it is not codified or doesn’t have some protection going forward, our sports will be drastically impacted,” Seemes told me this week.

How The House vs. NCAA Settlement Will Chance Non-Revenue Sports

In truth, the settlement means that the viability of sports sponsorships and scholarship opportunities at universities across the country is at stake.

That $2.8 billion in back payments to former athletes approved by the House vs. NCAA settlement? In the case of most NCAA programs, the majority of that money will go to men’s football and men’s and women’s basketball players, according to The Athletic. And that new $20 million per year revenue-sharing deal? Texas Tech announced it was handing out 90-percent of it to revenue-generating sports. Other departments, like Ohio State and North Carolina, will issue portions of the revenue-sharing cap to women’s volleyball and men’s baseball.

Just 11 days after the announcement, the first big track and field domino fell when Pac-12 conference member Washington State announced, publicly, that its men’s and women’s programs were going to a distance focus, effectively eliminating field and throwing event disciplines and limiting sprints and hurdles opportunities. Not all programs will be as transparent.

After the House Settlement was passed, Seemes’ department convened research into publicly available data around NCAA athletic department spending and found a sobering truth.

Over the past 20 years, budgets for non-revenue sports at universities across college sports, including at Power 4 Conferences, the Group of Six Conferences, NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) Conferences and all others, has remained consistent.

“It’s around 34 percent for Power 4 Conferences,” Seemes said. “And it’s around 35 percent for Group of Six, 54 or 55 percent for FCS and 65 percent for the others.”

Which means that, even in the changing eras of increased spending, major conference changes and increased budgets, Olympic sports are still vitally important to athletic departments nationwide.

Why Minimum Spending Will Be Important For Non-Revenue Sports

Seemes believes those numbers to be paramount for the future success of non-revenue sports going forward.

Toward the end of June, leaders from four national coaching associations – wrestling, swimming and diving, track and field, and volleyball – traveled back to Washington, DC, to speak in front of senate and congressional leadership offices.

“A number of coaches associations have lined up primarily behind two items that can provide protections so that sports scholarship requirements can’t be reduced or eliminated,” Seemes said.

With that research in place, the national coaches associations had the ammo to pitch new language to lawmakers around how athletic departments could utilize budgetary spending in the future.

The consensus, they felt, is that in order to protect the future of non-revenue sports, athletic departments must implement minimum spending limitations consistent with budgets over time.

“We’re saying that for 20 years, this is what member programs have been spending,” Seemes said. “It varies from school to school. But in those four (conference) groups, the average has been consistent. They’ve been doing this.”

Coaches Associations Continue Advocacy In Washington, DC

Seemes says 76-percent of all student-athletes in college sports are in non-revenue sports–essentially meaning all athletes outside men’s football and men’s and women’s basketball.

“Are we going to compromise that 76-percent for 24 percent?” Seemes said. “We don’t think that should be done. And we feel like, because of the pressure that will be applied for athletic departments and how the House Settlement’s will force expenditures on how schools will spend, it’s important to have protections.”

Programs with major budgets in football and basketball may have to face interesting questions for supplementary sports.

In some cases, that could mean the end of sponsorships in some athletic budgets. But in others, like in the case of Washington State, it could just represent some clever accounting.

“A school like Washington State, they are playing by the rules as they’re written,” Seemes said. “But they are abusing the rules …they are going distance because they’ll have less athletes, less coaching staff, less expenses. But they can use their athletes for cross country, indoor and outdoor track, which will mean on paper they’re sponsoring six sports. To me, that is unethical and abusing the membership rules.”

Nevertheless, Seemes and others continue their advocacy in Washington.

He said he would like to see a bill written to account for minimum spending required by athletic departments in the NCAA.

“We’re here for broad-based sports,” he said. “We think college sports have a lot of value. They have a lot of value for prospective student-athletes.

“The biggest value is opportunities. We don’t want to see those opportunities slashed, whether it’s for track and field or any other sport. We’re about retaining broad-based sports opportunities.”