By Ekene Aniemeka
The regulatory landscape for non-revenue Olympic sports has undergone a dramatic transformation following the House settlement, with profound implications for athletes, institutions, and the broader collegiate athletic ecosystem. The presentation of Kristina Minor, senior counsel at Husch Blackwell, at the Marquette Law School’s 36th Annual National Sports Law Institute (NSLI) conference provided a thorough examination of equity and economics in the new era, highlighting regulatory changes, challenges, and the urgent need for federal intervention to protect Olympic and non-revenue sports.
The House Settlement: Reshaping the System
The House settlement involves two key components: substantial back damages and forward institutional obligations. Institutions will pay approximately $2.8 billion over ten years to affected classes, with an amount equal to 22 percent of the Average Shared Revenue, or $20.5 million for the 2025-26 cycle, available for direct student-athlete support at each institution’s discretion. Notably, institutions can now directly enter into Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements with student-athletes and act as marketing agents to facilitate third-party NIL deals.
A central shift involves eliminating Division I scholarship limits, replacing them with sport specific roster limits. For example, football rosters will jump to 105 spots, while non-revenue sports such as wrestling and tennis see only modest increases. These changes originated from coaches’ groups but have led to distinct disparities in resources available for non-revenue sports, especially when compared to high-revenue programs such as football or basketball. In practice, budget constraints make it nearly impossible for all institutions to reach the new $20.5 million threshold without significant fundraising or cost cutting, a reality that particularly impacts non-revenue Olympic sports.
Disparate Impact and Political Realities
Minor’s presentation underscores the reality in which non-revenue sports face a disproportionate burden under the new roster limits. The disparity between scholarships and roster spots is most pronounced in Olympic and other non-revenue programs, often leaving institutions struggling to balance compliance with student-athlete welfare. Designated Student-Athletes who received scholarships prior to the House settlement are protected from counting against roster limits for the duration of their collegiate careers, regardless of transfer status.
Minor cautioned against using the term “revenue-sharing,” observing that most schools lack sufficient revenue to meaningfully share with all teams. Instead, she emphasized the escalating need for more targeted fundraising, creative resource allocation, or painful budget cuts, especially as money “doesn’t necessarily exist.” Multiple commissions and think tanks, including the Knight Commission, have developed proposals ranging from federal legislation to maintaining proportional spending and regionalizing competition for cost containment.
The Knight Commission and Federal Legislation
The Knight Commission and other advisory bodies advocate for several reforms, recommending federal legislation to establish a baseline for equitable resource distribution. Proposals include incentivizing spending outside football and basketball, regionalizing non-revenue sport competition to reduce costs, and creating national funds to support Olympic sports, potentially sourced from taxed sports wagering revenue. Other suggested proposals further support eliminating football specific factors from revenue distribution formulas, tightening Title IX enforcement, and embedding opportunity incentives for providing scholarships across all sports.
Despite the abundance of proposals, Minor observed that the regulatory environment has become increasingly fragmented. The rate at which the industry has evolved leaves few universally accepted standards of conduct, forcing stakeholders to “poke holes in proposals” that can swing between excessive and insufficient regulation. The core question, she argued, remains: “Are we really about the student-athlete anymore?”
The Role of Executive Orders and Federal Policy
President Trump’s Executive Order on Saving College Sports further complicated the regulatory field. The order identifies unresolved issues but fails to provide actionable solutions or timelines, reflecting the broader political volatility that has influenced college athletics. Under the previous administration, the Department of Education treated NIL funds as institutional dollars for Title IX compliance, mandating equal scholarships for men and women. Trump’s subsequent revocation of those guidelines created substantial uncertainty, with institutions left in regulatory limbo and no clear federal answer forthcoming.
Legislative Proposals: SCORE and SAFE Acts
The Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act aligns closely with National Collegiate Athletic Association positions, establishing national student-athlete protections and antitrust exemptions that allow pooling of media rights to maximize revenue. This model aims to generate new broadcast income to support both Olympic and women’s sports, while also imposing agent regulations and standardizing transfer protocols. The Student-Athlete Fairness and Enforcement (SAFE) Act strives for holistic protections but fails to define the scope of the term “athlete,” leaving significant ambiguities regarding sport level and coverage.
Title IX Enforcement and Gender Opportunity
Recent litigation, including Schroeder v. University of Oregon, has thrust Title IX compliance back into the spotlight, questioning the enforcement mechanisms for ensuring opportunity and resource equity. Continued increases in women’s collegiate enrollment and declining men’s participation intensify the debate over who will enforce Title IX and what consequences will be faced by men’s Olympic sports if equity is not maintained.
Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
Minor’s presentation highlighted that the regulatory future for non-revenue Olympic sports is both critical and unsettled. Without federal legislation and coordinated policy action, institutions struggle to balance compliance, fairness, and financial viability. The influx of executive orders, the lack of cohesive standards, and economic disparities among collegiate sports all reinforce the need for a deliberate and transparent approach. Minor stressed the imperative for federal leadership, tighter Title IX enforcement, and thoughtfully constructed rules that avoid swinging between extremes. Ultimately, the future of non-revenue sports will depend on meaningful investment, consensus driven legislation, and a refocused commitment to the student-athlete experience
Ekene Aniemeka is a second-year law student at Marquette University Law School and an active member of the Sports Law Society. Originally from California, Ekene attended San Diego State University before pursuing a passion for law in Milwaukee.
