Is the NIL era doomed in its present form? 2025 Financial results for Big Ten Schools:
Being a CPA interested in the impact of NIL on intercollegiate athletics, I can’t resist the urge to crunch numbers on NCAA annual reports. And after doing so, it becomes pretty clear that the NIL era in College Sports is most likely not sustainable in its current form. Here are 2025 results for Big Ten Conference schools, which despite having the largest media contracts in college sports, are all incurring significant losses. Big Ten schools averaged over $ 48 million in net operating losses last year:
2025 Operating Losses ($) Big Ten Public Schools * | Operating Revenue | Operating Expenses | Operating Loss 2025 | Contributions | Student Fees & School Support | Endowment & Investment | Surplus (Deficit) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois | 129,511,596 | 189,859,538 | -60,347,942 | 50,720,205 | 11,490,052 | 3,039,325 | 4,901,640 |
| Indiana | 129,055,001 | 173,020,646 | -43,965,645 | 26,431,033 | 27,946,488 | - | 10,411,876 |
| Iowa | 137,331,725 | 173,379,699 | -36,047,974 | 35,071,275 | 2,848,923 | 4,726,168 | 6,598,392 |
| Maryland | 92,608,681 | 128,662,116 | -36,053,435 | 11,311,080 | 18,659,414 | 1,418,743 | -4,664,198 |
| Michigan | 214,138,899 | 261,556,268 | -47,417,369 | 50,362,101 | 196,545 | 11,146,570 | 14,287,847 |
| Michigan State | 131,075,123 | 178,288,091 | -47,212,968 | 36,980,159 | 7,693,718 | 4,142,651 | 1,603,560 |
| Minnesota | 127,741,577 | 161,202,217 | -33,460,640 | 22,376,553 | 11,657,831 | 1,829,185 | 2,402,929 |
| Nebraska | 165,504,684 | 207,743,888 | -42,239,204 | 48,407,981 | - | 1,176,342 | 7,345,119 |
| Ohio State | 259,634,646 | 320,394,965 | -60,760,319 | 68,955,032 | - | 7,488,209 | 15,682,922 |
| Oregon | 151,180,370 | 182,702,378 | -31,522,008 | 33,164,614 | 589,167 | 486,753 | 2,718,526 |
| Penn State ** | 186,599,369 | 236,275,528 | -49,676,159 | 64,557,754 | - | 3,710,475 | 18,592,070 |
| Purdue | 119,659,133 | 149,650,825 | -29,991,692 | 27,693,151 | - | 3,184,036 | 885,495 |
| Rutgers | 105,321,274 | 193,831,838 | -88,510,564 | 8,122,577 | 30,870,544 | 2,323,671 | -47,193,772 |
| UCLA | 114,487,557 | 173,429,394 | -58,941,837 | 13,478,195 | 21,060,000 | 2,771,489 | -21,632,153 |
| Washington | 110,425,099 | 184,354,672 | -73,929,573 | 52,876,796 | 10,781,975 | 4,389,247 | -5,881,555 |
| Wisconsin | 162,395,226 | 193,630,009 | -31,234,783 | 26,219,033 | 3,176,379 | 6,136,608 | 4,297,237 |
| Average per School ($) | 146,041,873 | 194,248,880 | -48,207,007 | 36,045,471 | 9,185,690 | 3,623,092 | 647,246 |
And these losses are before Revenue Sharing adds another $ 25 million or more in additional costs this year. Consequently, schools such as Rutgers and Washington (which receives only a half-share of the current media contract) could be looking at eye-popping net operating losses of around $ 100 million this year. Other schools in the Big Ten are not far behind.
The bottom line is a school has to come up with money from somewhere to pay for all this red ink. Historically, deficits have been funded by a combination of athletic department contributions, student fees and direct school support. However, these traditional sources of support are unlikely to keep pace with skyrocketing athletics operating costs. Despite the hard sell by many athletic departments, there are indications that booster fatigue is increasing. And it’s not a good look for schools to ratchet up student fees paid by middle-income families in order to pay teen-age football and basketball players millions of dollars. This is the reason why many schools and conferences are looking at alternate sources of funding, including private equity arrangements and a so-caller super league. It’s why the current NIL era is most likely not sustainable in its present structure.
For detailed data on Big Ten 2025 operating income and expenses on a school-by-school basis, see our Big Ten page. Next week we will be reporting 2025 income and expense data for Big 12 Conference schools.
* Data available for Big Ten public schools only, results for Northwestern & Southern Cal are not included.
** Operating expenses for Penn State do not include revenue sharing payments reported on 2025 NCAA filing.
Penn State is the first school to lift the veil on Revenue Sharing:
While Revenue Sharing did not begin until July 1, 2025, Penn State reported its commitment on its 2024-25 NCAA membership report filed earlier this year. To our knowledge, this is the first official report on how a school will specifically allocate revenue sharing payments to its sports teams. Penn State reported a total revenue sharing commitment of over $ 18 million, and the allocations are interesting:
| Penn State Revenue Sharing allocation by team: 2025-26 | # of Teams | Total ($) | % |
|---|---|---|---|
 |  | ||
| Football | 1 | 13,338,959 | 72.6% |
| Basketball (M) | 1 | 3,004,666 | 16.4% |
| Wrestling | 1 | 1,449,766 | 7.9% |
| Baseball | 1 | 300,000 | 1.6% |
| Hockey (M) | 1 | 95,000 | 0.5% |
| Lacrosse (M) | 1 | 50,000 | 0.3% |
| Tennis (M) | 1 | 10,000 | 0.1% |
| Other Men's teams | 9 | - | - |
| Totals- Men's Teams | 16 | $ 18,248,391 | 99.3% |
| Basketball (W) | 1 | 110,000 | 0.6% |
| Volleyball (W) | 1 | 10,000 | 0.1% |
| Other Women's teams | 13 | - | - |
| Totals - Women's Teams | 15 | $ 120,000 | 0.7% |
 | |||
| Totals - All Teams | 31 | $ 18,368,391 | 100% |
Not surprisingly, football and men’s basketball get the bulk (89%) of the revenue sharing payments. But there are a few head scratchers … wrestling receives 15 times more of a revenue share than men’s hockey, even though each team’s operating revenues are roughly the same. One likely explanation here (besides the fact that wrestling is a wildly competitive sport in Pennsylvania) is that the school is also factoring third-party NIL compensation into how they ultimately allocate institutional revenue sharing among its teams.
But one item that stands out is that women’s sports receive less than 1% of revenue sharing payments, and only 2 of the 15 women’s teams receive any allocation at all (9 men’s teams also received no allocation). Since Women’s teams account for almost 5% of team specific revenues at Penn State, it appears initially these teams are being shorted. However, this is likely not anywhere as disproportionate as it may initially appear:
Without getting too deep into the accounting weeds, schools that award additional scholarship money based on the new roster limits, must reduce their maximum revenue sharing payments dollar for dollar up to $ 2.5 million. In Penn State’s situation, it appears they issued new scholarships of around $ 2.1 million, reducing their maximum revenue sharing allocation from $ 20.5 million to just under $ 18.4 million. New scholarship money is part of revenue sharing, however these amounts are / will be reported as scholarship awards rather than as revenue sharing payments. So for Penn State, if a little less than half (42%) of the new scholarship money went to female athletes, the percentage of total benefits to female athletes from revenue sharing would match the percentage of revenue (5%) generated by women’s teams. Consequently, it appears female athletes at Penn State are likely receiving benefits from revenue sharing in proportion to what their teams generate in revenue.
Unfortunately this isn’t readily apparent from the current reporting format, as NCAA instructions for reporting revenue sharing payments specifically state to not include additional scholarships or enhanced educational benefits. It would be helpful if the NCAA added a section so schools could specifically disclose these additional benefits, and provide a fuller picture of the total benefits athletes receive from the school’s revenue sharing program.
The Penn State disclosure provides a good indication as to how revenue sharing will actually operate at most Power Conference schools … and give the school credit for being proactively transparent in their reporting.
Estimated Revenue Sharing by FBS Conference:
Here is how our estimate of 2025 revenue sharing per participating school breaks down by FBS conference:
Estimated Revenue
Sharing per School# of Schools
Participating
Avr Revenue
per School *Est Revenue
Sharing 2025
Big Ten 18 146,041,873 20,500,000
SEC 16 133,625,014 20,500,000
ACC 17 97,146,144 20,500,000
Big 12 16 66,596,824 20,500,000
Pac 12 2 ** **
Mountain West 11 22,815,885 5,019,495
American 12 17,644,874 3,881,872
Sun Belt 14 11,112,224 2,444,689
Mid-American 13 9,646,224 2,122,169
Conference USA 12 9,224,151 2,029,313
FBS Independents
2 n/a 19,250,000
FCS Schools 88 5,160,594 1,135,331
NCAA I Schools w/o Football 90 4,779,899 1,051,578
Totals 311
* Our estimates assume that all Power 4 schools will max out at the $ 20.5 million cap, and that all other NCAA I schools electing into revenue sharing will make payments averaging 22% of annual operating revenue. However, schools can pay out any percentage for revenue sharing so long as they don’t exceed the annual cap. Consequently, revenue sharing may produce a “Moneyball” upstart.
** We are not making an estimate of 2025 revenue sharing for the Pac-12 as it is currently in transition. However, the new Pac-12 may end up becoming the Sweet Spot conference in the revenue sharing era.
All NCAA I athletic departments are incurring significant operating losses even before the effect of Revenue Sharing:
All FBS school athletic departments incur significant annual net operating losses. Power conference schools use big athletic department contributions to fund most of their operating losses, while other schools must rely heavily on direct school support and student fees:
| 2024 Annual Operating Results ($) Average per FBS Conference School | Operating Revenue * | Operating Expenses | Net Loss from Operations ($) | Contributions | School Support & Student Fees | Net Surplus (Deficit) ** | % of expenses paid by School & Student Fees |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | | | | | | |
||
| SEC | 133,625,014 | 205,027,769 | - 71,402,755 | 68,258,094 | 6,974,108 | 3,829,447 | 3% | |
| Big Ten | 131,829,564 | 187,554,432 | - 55,724,868 | 41,286,441 | 8,454,966 | - 5,983,461 | 4% | |
| ACC | 97,146,144 | 151,816,480 | - 54,670,336 | 44,989,295 | 19,468,254 | 9,787,213 | 13% | |
| Pac-12 (2023-24 line-up) | 83,408,392 | 145,097,682 | - 61,689,290 | 27,729,575 | 22,933,681 | - 11,026,034 | 16% | |
| Big 12 | 66,596,824 | 114,812,794 | - 48,215,970 | 30,590,592 | 15,520,650 | - 2,104,728 | 14% | |
| Mountain West | 22,815,885 | 64,509,764 | - 41,693,879 | 10,691,232 | 28,137,573 | - 2,865,074 | 44% | |
| American | 17,644,874 | 62,418,964 | - 44,774,090 | 9,393,008 | 37,538,407 | 2,157,325 | 60% | |
| Sun Belt | 11,112,224 | 46,933,285 | - 35,821,061 | 5,993,678 | 25,624,583 | - 2,759,053 | 55% | |
| Mid-American | 9,646,224 | 36,059,723 | - 26,413,499 | 2,857,756 | 23,623,351 | 67,708 | 66% | |
| Conference USA | 9,224,151 | 36,039,621 | - 26,815,470 | 3,498,364 | 22,466,196 | - 850,910 | 62% | |
| ||||||||
* Athletic Department operating revenue includes ticket sales, game guarantees, TV and media contracts, licensing, advertising, sponsorships and royalties, bowl game, NCAA and conference distributions, and other operating income. Operating Revenue does not include direct or indirect school support, student fees or contributions to the athletic department.
** Average operating results from fiscal year 2024 NCAA reporting.
What do net operating losses have to do with Revenue Sharing?
College Athletic Departments are already losing money and the cash needed to fund revenue sharing and related costs – close to $ 30 million annually at most power conference schools – has to come from somewhere. Boosters are being aggressively marketed for increased contributions to help cover these costs. However, revenue sharing will likely result in increased parity between Power Conference schools and as a result, potentially a lot of unhappy boosters. Revenue sharing may also result in booster fatigue at many schools.
So at almost all schools, revenue sharing will likely require the infusion of either additional school support and/or increased student fees, and this is a sticky issue. For example, James Madison University has made a remarkable transition from the FCS level and made the College Football Playoff in 2025. But this came at a cost … JMU also charges the highest amount of athletic fees of any school – over $ 55 million per most recent reporting. This works out to $ 2,456 per student for the 2025-26 school year and is mandatory … whether a student has any interest in athletics or not. In JMU’s defense, they are very transparent about where student fees go, and the school’s internal funding of athletics is comparable to many of its competitors. Direct school support to athletic departments ultimately comes from students either via tuition payments or specifically designated student fees.
The bottom line is that athletic departments are searching for any available method to pay for their skyrocketing costs, and this is why many schools are looking at private equity as a potential funding source.
Estimated Revenue Sharing by Sport:
We compiled data from NCAA membership reporting of 20 Power Conference schools, and arrived at the following estimated revenue sharing allocations per team for the upcoming 2025-26 year:
| Estimated Revenue Sharing Power School Averages | Team | Average Per Team | Average Roster * | Average Per Athlete | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Football | M | 15,345,899 | 105 | 146,151 | 75.0% |
| Basketball | M | 3,279,161 | 15 | 218,611 | 16.0% |
| Hockey | M | 552,813 | 26 | 21,262 | 2.7% |
| Baseball | M | 364,567 | 34 | 10,723 | 1.8% |
| Basketball | W | 233,913 | 14 | 16,708 | 1.1% |
| Wrestling | M | 126,591 | 30 | 4,220 | 0.6% |
| Volleyball | W | 103,938 | 17 | 6,114 | 0.5% |
| Gymnastics | W | 91,333 | 19 | 4,807 | 0.4% |
| Softball | W | 83,526 | 23 | 3,632 | 0.4% |
| Hockey | W | 65,236 | 25 | 2,609 | 0.3% |
| Soccer | M/W | 58,860 | 28 | 2,102 | 0.3% |
| Track & Field / X-C | M/W | 43,366 | 49 | 885 | 0.2% |
| Lacrosse | M/W | 41,083 | 41 | 1,002 | 0.2% |
| Swimming | M/W | 31,986 | 30 | 1,066 | 0.1% |
| Rowing | W | 20,139 | 64 | 315 | 0.1% |
| Field Hockey | W | 19,299 | 25 | 772 | 0.1% |
| Tennis | M/W | 17,164 | 9 | 1,907 | 0.1% |
| Golf | M/W | 12,590 | 9 | 1,399 | 0.1% |
| Beach Volleyball | W | 8,536 | 17 | 502 | 0.1% |
| Totals per School 2025 | All Teams | $ 20,500,000 | 100% |
Football and Men’s basketball account for close to 90% of team specific revenues at most Power Conference schools, and athletes on these two teams will be the major beneficiaries of revenue sharing. While football receives the most revenue sharing per team, Men’s basketball has the highest average per player due to much smaller roster sizes (15 versus 105). These are averages per athlete. In actuality, a few players per team will receive substantially higher than the average, while many will receive much less. For players who see little if any playing time, their revenue share will also likely be minimal. Revenue sharing is in addition to any third-party NIL compensation an athlete may receive.
Estimated NIL & NCAA Revenue Sharing 2025-26:
As part of the House v. NCAA settlement, schools are allowed to share athletic department revenues with their student athletes beginning on July 1, 2025. We estimate that NCAA Division I athletes will receive over $ 2.3 billion in total NIL and Revenue Sharing compensation during the current 2025-26 academic year:
| Revenue Sharing & NIL Estimates 2025-26 | Payments to Athletes | % |
|---|---|---|
| NCAA Revenue Sharing | $ 1,800,000,000 | 78% |
| Commercial NIL * | 292,000,000 | 13% |
| NIL Collectives * | 205,000,000 | 9% |
| Totals | $ 2,297,000,000 | 100% |
Revenue Sharing: Under the NCAA revenue sharing model, schools can elect to make payments directly to athletes up to $ 20.5 million per year. If a school also commits to increased scholarships than the amount of revenue sharing is reduced dollar for dollar up to $ 2.5 million. The annual cap will increase to around $ 32 million over the next ten years. We estimate that NCAA I schools will make revenue sharing payments to athletes of around $ 1.8 billion during the 2025-26 fiscal year. The following table summarizes the average annual operating revenue and revenue sharing estimates per School:
Revenue Sharing estimates
per NCAA school 2025-26NCAA I
Schools# of Schools
Participating Average
Revenue
Revenue
Sharing
Total
Payments
FBS - Power 4 Schools 68 68 $ 108,872,770 $ 20,500,000 $ 1,394,000,000
FBS - Group of 6 Schools 68 65 14,822,554 3,260,962 211,962,518
FCS Conference Schools 129 88 5,160,594 1,135,331 99,909,100
NCAA I Schools w/o Football 100 90 4,779,899 1,051,578 94,642,000
Totals 365 311 $ 1,800,513,618
Indications are that virtually all Power 4 schools will max out at the $ 20.5 million cap for 2025-26. Our estimates assume that all other participating NCAA I schools will make payments averaging 22% of annual operating revenue. These are averages … some schools will pay a higher percentage and many will elect to pay lower. Of the current total of 365 NCAA I members, 54 schools have indicated to date that they will not participate in revenue sharing, this includes the three Division I service academies, the eight Ivy League schools and 43 others. The averages above do not include third-party NIL payments to athletes.
Football and Men’s basketball account for close to 90% of team specific revenues at most Power Conference schools, and athletes on these two teams will be the major beneficiaries of revenue sharing:
| Estimated Revenue Sharing Power Conference Schools | Revenue Sharing % | Allocation to Team ($) | # of eligible Athletes * | Average per Athlete ($) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| Football | 75% | $ 15,375,000 | 105 | $ 146,428 |
| Men's Basketball | 15% | 3,075,000 | 15 | 205,000 |
| All Other Sports | 10% | 2,050,000 | 456 | 4,495 |
| Totals 2025-26 | 100% | $ 20,500,000 | 576 |
* Eligible athletes are based on the new NCAA I roster limits. These are averages per athlete … a few players per team will receive substantially higher than the average, while many will receive much less. Football teams are allocated the most money, but men’s basketball has the highest average per player due to much smaller rosters. Our tables below detail the new NCAA I scholarship and roster limits as well as estimated revenue sharing for all other sports.
* Commercial NIL: In addition to school revenue sharing payments, student athletes can continue to receive third-party NIL income for product endorsements, services and other compensation for use of their name, image and likeness. All third-party NIL contracts over $ 600 must be submitted to the College Sports Commission for approval. The estimate for 2025-26 Commercial NIL comes from the Opendorse NIL at Four report.
* NIL Collectives: With the advent of Revenue Sharing, the influence of collectives at most schools has greatly diminished. NIL collectives are also considered third-party entities and contracts exceeding $ 600 must be submitted to the College Sports Commission for approval. The estimate for 2025-26 NIL Collectives also comes from the Opendorse NIL at Four report.
Significant non-compliance with NIL reporting requirements?
I don’t want to say something is rotten in Denmark, but the numbers aren’t currently adding up on NIL compliance. As outlined in the House v NCAA settlement, every third-party NIL deal over $ 600 is required to be submitted to the College Sports Commission for approval. However, the total value of deals submitted via the NIL Go portal appears to be only a fraction of what is reportedly being paid for NIL. This raises the issue of potentially significant non-compliance with NIL reporting requirements. Additionally, there is some opposition from at least a few schools to the CSC participation agreement as currently drafted.
The latest update from the College Sports Commission reports only $ 166 million of cleared deals as of March 1, 2026 – this is a fraction of the estimated $ 500 million third-party NIL market just for basketball alone. Some of the difference can be attributable to the NIL Collective “money dump” prior to the July 1 start of CSC enforcement, but this still leaves a boatload of missing money. Admittedly, I’m not the accountant with the sharpest pencil around, but unless there is a massive amount of pending deals in the NIL Go system, even I can see that these numbers don’t seem to add up. This is unfortunate, as the CSC is a vital tool in having all schools playing by the same rules. Stay tuned …
Increased athletic scholarships for NCAA I athletes:
The NCAA recognizes that revenue sharing will primarily benefit athletes in only a few sports. To address this issue, scholarship restrictions on all NCAA I sports will be eliminated and roster limits will apply instead. This could create a substantial increase in athletic scholarships especially in non-revenue sports. For example, the scholarship limit in women’s rowing will increase from 20 to 68, in softball from 12 to 25 and in baseball from 11.7 to 34. Here are the new limits under the proposal:
| Scholarship Limits per NCAA I Sport | Team | Old limit | New limit | Increase Per team |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men's NCAA I Sports | ||||
| Baseball | M | 11.7 | 34 | 22.3 |
| Basketball | M | 13 | 15 | 2 |
| Fencing | M | 4.5 | 24 | 19.5 |
| Football (FBS) | M | 85 | 105 | 20 |
| Golf | M | 4.5 | 9 | 4.5 |
| Gymnastics | M | 6.3 | 20 | 13.7 |
| Hockey | M | 18 | 26 | 8 |
| Lacrosse | M | 12.6 | 48 | 35.4 |
| Skiing | M | 6.3 | 16 | 9.7 |
| Soccer | M | 9.9 | 28 | 18.1 |
| Swimming | M | 9.9 | 30 | 20.1 |
| Tennis | M | 4.5 | 10 | 5.5 |
| Track / X-C | M | 12.6 | 62 | 49.4 |
| Volleyball | M | 4.5 | 18 | 13.5 |
| Water polo | M | 4.5 | 24 | 19.5 |
| Wrestling | M | 9.9 | 30 | 20.1 |
| Women's NCAA I Sports | ||||
| Basketball | W | 15 | 15 | - |
| Beach volleyball | W | 6 | 19 | 13 |
| Bowling | W | 5 | 11 | 6 |
| Equestrian | W | 15 | 50 | 35 |
| Fencing | W | 5 | 24 | 19 |
| Field hockey | W | 12 | 27 | 15 |
| Golf | W | 6 | 9 | 3 |
| Gymnastics | W | 12 | 20 | 8 |
| Hockey | W | 18 | 26 | 8 |
| Lacrosse | W | 12 | 38 | 26 |
| Rowing | W | 20 | 68 | 48 |
| Rugby | W | 12 | 36 | 24 |
| Skiing | W | 7 | 16 | 9 |
| Soccer | W | 14 | 28 | 14 |
| Softball | W | 12 | 25 | 13 |
| Swimming | W | 14 | 30 | 16 |
| Tennis | W | 8 | 10 | 2 |
| Track / X-C | W | 18 | 62 | 44 |
| Triathlon | W | 6.5 | 14 | 7.5 |
| Acrobatics | W | 14 | 55 | 41 |
| Volleyball | W | 12 | 18 | 6 |
| Water polo | W | 8 | 24 | 16 |
| Wrestling | W | 10 | 30 | 20 |
| Mixed / Coed Sports | ||||
| Rifle | Mix | 3.6 | 12 | 8.4 |
| Stunt | Mix | 14 | 65 | 51 |
| Totals |
The potential impact of these additional awards is massive. Under our calculations, NCAA I schools could award up to 86,212 additional “full-ride” scholarships. Assuming a value of $ 35,000 annually per scholarship, this would result in potentially up to $ 3 billion in additional scholarship awards per year – substantially more than the estimated $ 1.75 billion in revenue sharing payments.
But the actual increase is going to be substantially less than $ 3 billion. Scholarships awards are optional – a school can fully fund a sport or make awards less than the maximum allowed. Many schools already operate with roster sizes less than the NCAA limit, and they will have a new financial incentive to operate with smaller teams. And sadly, we’re likely to see cuts to non-revenue sports at many schools. Athletic directors are currently looking at a new reality where the costs of sponsoring a (competitive) non-revenue sport are likely to increase significantly, while the historical offsetting subsidy from sports such as football is being substantially decreased due to revenue sharing. There are likely going to be painful decisions to make about non-revenue sports at many schools. Currently tennis is at risk at many D1 schools.
Note: If a school awards additional athletic scholarships beyond the NCAA team limits in effect prior to House v NCAA, than the increased awards are counted as part of their revenue sharing pool up to $ 2.5 million per year.
Summary of NIL Collectives:
A few things you may – or may not want to know – about NIL Collectives.
Questions on our data? Contact us at: NIL-NCAA.com
Statistics compiled & edited by Patrick O’Rourke, CPA Washington, DC 