There has long been a divide on the matter of paying college athletes — and what a fair value for their performance truly is — between the NCAA and its student-athletes. You likely have a strong opinion on what an 18-year-old should be compensated for playing a sport, and the potential implications it may have on collegiate athletics and pure “amateurism.”
One side argues that free tuition, room and board through scholarships is more than a fair trade for student-athletes’ time and effort outside of the classroom. The other side points to the nonprofit organization that is the NCAA, which generated a record $1.4 billion in revenue in 2024, almost exclusively from ticket sales and media revenue generated by events showcasing its student athletes.
One month ago, a federal judge approved a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will allow schools to pay student-athletes directly for their name, image and likeness through licensing deals. The decision came from a lawsuit filed by Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, who sued the NCAA and “power five” athletic conferences. The suit further dismantles the power the NCAA has held over universities and student athletes’ earning power for decades.
In Year 1 – the 2025-26 academic year – schools can opt-in to share up to $20.5 million with student athletes, with that funding coming from sources such as media rights revenue, ticket sales and sponsorships. These funds would be distributed amongst the entire athletic department, with football and basketball likely to take the largest shares in most cases.
Last June, the Big East Conference struck a media rights deal that will earn each member university roughly $20 million to $23 million during the 2025-26 season. In the Big Ten Conference, each member institution earned more than $60 million exclusively from media-rights revenue in 2024, with 2025-26 revenue splits projected to rise to $75 million. Schools in these conferences earn disproportionate amounts of money, but in an attempt to level the playing field across college athletics, each school is limited to sharing just that $20.5 million with its student-athletes.
Sounds like a good plan, right? Student athletes get their rightful share of revenue that they help generate, and schools have a structured say in how that revenue is distributed. In addition, there’s now a salary cap in place to govern power conferences from outspending everyone else for top talent. A Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse has even been established to review third-party NIL deals exceeding $600 to ensure legitimate agreements at fair market value.
One thing was forgotten though – What about everyone else? What about the military academies – Air Force, Army, Navy – which are barred by military rules from compensating student athletes through name, image and likeness? What about Ivy League schools, which do not provide athletic scholarships and focus on offering world-class academic opportunities first and sports as an extension?
What about schools like UNO, who have no monster media rights revenue coming in from the one-bid Summit League?
Let’s look at UNO’s situation. On June 27, Chancellor Joanne Li announced that the university would not opt-in to the terms of the House settlement for the 2025-26 academic year but will position the department to opt-in in future years when necessary. The university cited Title IX considerations, evolving NIL oversight and international financial and legal considerations among reasons for declining to opt-in this year.
But how can Omaha position itself to opt-in without a multimillion-dollar media rights payout each year? Would potential private donations be reliable, or even enough, to allow the Mavericks to opt into revenue sharing year after year? With third-party deals now monitored and restricted, how do you attract top athletic talent to your university without the promise of a structured payout from an approved party?
Plenty of universities that have opted-in won’t come close to the $20.5 million cap that will continue to swell, but they likely see no other option to remain competitive in this new era of collegiate athletics.
Chancellor Li has acted quickly on her plan to position UNO athletics for future success. On Tuesday, UNO announced that it had extended its contract with Opendorse, a leading NIL marketplace and software provider. Through the new partnership, Opendorse will provide on-site NIL education, an Omaha-branded NIL marketplace and access to ‘Team Builder’ – a software that will help the athletic department make data-driven decisions when structuring financial packages to recruit and retain student-athletes.
That’s a positive first step for UNO, but it does not answer the question of where a competitive level of funding will come from to ensure a thriving athletic department. While the arrival of NIL promised more parity and opportunity throughout collegiate sports, universities like UNO continue to be cast farther in the rearview mirror from their power-conference counterparts.
Three miles to the east, the same question arises for the aforementioned power conference counterparts. What about Creighton’s athletic department?
The Bluejays have more than enough cash reserves to opt-in, and an interesting edge presented itself when the House settlement was approved. Creighton, like many other Big East schools, has enough athletic revenue to spend up to the $20.5 million cap, but no football program to bleed the budget. The going rate for even a serviceable college quarterback is now anywhere from $1 million to $3 million, which will command up to 15 percent of the entire budget for many power-five athletic departments.
Without football, Creighton can focus on attracting top talent to multiple programs on the men’s and women’s side that are already nationally competitive. The Bluejays were one of only nine schools to make the NCAA tournament in volleyball, men’s basketball, women’s basketball and baseball this year.
The next question to be answered is where will Creighton direct most of its spending? While revenue will likely be split more evenly between its whole athletic department compared to other schools, men’s basketball will still see large payouts across the country due to roster sizes and March Madness payout structures. With Creighton’s program thriving, how much of the pie will Greg McDermott receive in the final years of his career for a national championship push?
The House settlement will irreversibly change college athletics, but will the results be a net-positive for student athletes? Universities and athletes have been presented with the illusion of choice, financial prosperity and a level playing field. I’m not convinced that’s true for everyone.
How can a teenager truly have a free choice of where they will attend college if the difference in their compensation is hundreds of thousands of dollars? With all things being relatively equal, would you take a five-to-six-figure pay cut for one job versus another?
How can every school have a legitimate chance of competing for a national championship if they can now legally be outspent for top talent? While in the last few years schools like UNO and even Creighton were being outspent for talent by NIL collectives, it is now condoned under the veil of an equal playing field.
If a power conference program loses out on a five-star recruit because they don’t have enough money left in the budget, can they be trusted not to pay the next one under the table?
Omaha is a microcosm of the coin that is now college sports under the new House settlement. Over the next year, both UNO and Creighton’s athletic departments will navigate wildly separate realities.
For UNO: will it be able to form a foundation that will allow it to one day opt-in to revenue sharing, and if so, at a competitive level? Also, what is a competitive level in a one-bid conference like the Summit League?
For Creighton: how will it use its position as a non-football school to capitalize on talent acquisition in other sports, specifically men’s basketball?
Creighton athletics may have been dealt an upper hand in the ruling of the House settlement. I wish that I could say the same for UNO.
That said, a “Maverick” is defined as “an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party.” UNO stayed true to its moniker. With the decision to opt-out early to position the athletic department for future opportunity, perhaps the Mavericks will reap the rewards of their bullish move years from now.
