Summary of Key Points
The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) was forced to break with its tradition of paying student-athletes nothing due to an antitrust lawsuit, the "House Case," and starting from 2025, colleges will be allowed to pay student-athletes. Top-tier schools will need to allocate between $20 million and $22 million annually. To cover this additional expense, colleges have begun to explore commercialization options such as jersey advertising and venue sponsorship. However, the article reveals that the real crisis is not about paying the students at all, but rather the severe distortion of profit distribution over the past few decades: student-athletes have generated billions in commercial value yet receive no cash compensation. The money has been absorbed by exorbitant coach salaries, luxurious facilities, and an inefficient administrative system. Now, the new legal costs associated with paying the students are colliding with these established fixed expenses, leading to financial deficits. This serves as a warning for the commercialization of sports in Chinese colleges.
1. Student-athletes Finally Getting Paid—Thanks to Antitrust Litigation
For decades, the NCAA has presented college sports as amateurism, claiming that student-athletes are first and foremost students and therefore should not receive cash compensation, with any payment limited to tuition scholarships. But the students refused to accept this: They train for over 40 hours daily (far exceeding the NCAA's mandated 20 hours) and generate billions in broadcast revenue from competitions; why should they work for free?
As a result, they filed lawsuits. In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA's monopoly was unconstitutional, allowing student-athletes to earn money through their image rights (NIL policies). The "House Case" in 2024 went even further, requiring colleges to establish a revenue-sharing mechanism that distributes a portion of the competition proceeds to the students. Although it is not mandatory, top schools are compelled to pay out millions each year to attract talented players, marking the end of the era of "free labor."
2. Where Does All the Money Go? Exorbitant Coaches and Luxury Facilities Take the Biggest Share
Do colleges really claim they have no money to pay the students? Consider the data for the Ohio State University football team in 2025:
- Revenue: $160 million
- Expenses: $92 million
- Net profit: $68 million
- Coach salaries and bonuses: $33 million (48% of expenses)
- Logistics and facilities maintenance: $15.8 million (34% of expenses)
- Student scholarships: only $5.21 million (5.6% of expenses), with only 85 slots available for over 100 players
In contrast, in the NFL (for example, the Green Bay Packers), player salaries account for 47.8% of revenue, while coaches account for only 9%. The money from college sports is flowing to coaches and infrastructure instead of the students who create the value—because colleges could not pay the students, they resorted to hiring high-paid coaches and building expensive training facilities in a "arms race" to attract top players.
3. Jersey Advertising Is Not a Last Resort, but a Result of Past Mismanagement
Colleges argue that they face deficits because they cannot pay the students, so they turn to advertising. However, this is just shifting the blame:
- Over the past few decades, colleges have invested heavily in coach salaries and luxurious facilities, creating fixed costs that are difficult to cut (e.g., coaches' contracts with significant termination fees, facility debts).
- Suddenly having to pay the students means relying on advertising to fill the gap. But the root of the problem is the distorted cost structure created by past decisions.
For instance, the total salary of administrative staff in Ohio State University's sports department is twice as high as the amount allocated for student scholarships. These unnecessary administrative expenses are also funded by the unpaid labor of the students.
4. A Warning for Chinese College Sports: Don't Use "Purity" to Mask Poor Profit Distribution
Events like China's CUBAL (College Basketball League) are also moving towards commercialization and may face similar issues:
- If we use the popularity of college athletes to sell sponsorship while claiming to maintain "purity" by not paying them, or even using their labor to subsidize administrative costs or less popular programs, conflicts will eventually arise.
- The lesson from the NCAA is to recognize the commercial value of student-athletes from the beginning—by allowing them to sign endorsements and share in competition revenue, rather than waiting for lawsuits to force change.
After all, the "purity" of college sports cannot be maintained by exploiting the students' unpaid labor; it requires fair profit distribution.
Conclusion
The NCAA's crisis is not due to commercialization itself, but rather the use of moral arguments to conceal exploitation. If Chinese college sports want to move towards a market-based model, they must clearly define how the money will be allocated from the start and prevent student-athletes from becoming the next "free labor force." Otherwise, the problems faced by the NCAA could soon affect us as well.