Story by
Should Tennessee pay athletes by gender equity or profits they produce? Fans disagree
- Story by
- Should Tennessee pay athletes by gender equity or profits they produce? Fans disagree
Tennessee fans disagree on how the university should share revenue with athletes, and they have plenty of questions about how it will work.
Some think football and men's basketball players should get the bulk of the money because their sports generate most of the revenue.
Advertisement
Some think it should be shared equitably among male and female athletes, which follows Title IX principles for public institutions. Others want a compromise between the approaches.
But all fans agree that there's a lot they don't understand about the new revenue sharing model coming to college athletics as early as June.
Dozens of questions were asked by UT fans via our free Vols text group . So let's answer them in the mailbag.
How will Tennessee share revenue? And why?
UT has not disclosed its approach, and revenue sharing won't be approved until April, at the earliest. But it appears UT, like most SEC schools, will divide the money according to revenue each sports produces.
Advertisement
A model is prescribed in the preliminary House v. NCAA federal antitrust settlement: Approximately 75% to football players, 15% to men's basketball, 5% to women's basketball and 5% to other sports.
President Donald Trump's administration provided cover for that approach by rescinding Joe Biden's Title IX guidance for paying college athletes.
Arguments for paying athletes based on Title IX principles are reasonable but not ironclad. Plus, schools think it's riskier to violate guidance from the multi-billion-dollar House settlement rather than Title IX.
What's the argument for paying players based on equity?
If these were professional teams, there wouldn't be a reasonable argument. That's why NBA players earn much more than WNBA players.
Advertisement
But the NCAA is still clinging to the façade that college football and men's basketball are amateur sports. And Olympic sports in college mostly would still fall into that amateur category.
Until they turn pro, sports at publicly funded universities must abide by Title IX law.
The next question is whether Title IX addresses how universities share revenue with athletes. The athletics provision says that "no person shall on the basis of sex … be denied the benefits of" intercollegiate athletics.
Of course, revenue sharing in college athletics wasn't part of the conversation when Title IX was passed in 1972.
Advertisement
If this pay is merit-based, how is merit determined?
Neither revenue sharing nor name, image and likeness pay is merit-based.
The most popular model of revenue sharing is based on how much revenue each sport generates. At most schools, that's football at the top, then men's basketball and either women's basketball or baseball.
Even if a college football team has a losing record and the tennis team wins the national title, football still generates much more revenue.
Traditional NIL pay is market based. If the NIL market says a star quarterback is worth $1 million, then that informs his asking price.
Advertisement
But if a business wants to pay a walk-on athlete $100,000 in NIL benefits to do a commercial, that's also allowed. It's not based purely on their on-field accomplishments.
Why not incorporate both Title IX principles and revenue generation?
You're talking about a compromise between two polar opposite perspectives.
It's being discussed around college athletics. But good luck relying on NCAA administrators, university presidents, athletics directors, coaches and politicians to find middle ground.
Also, any compromise would be open to lawsuits from both sides rather than one side.
What are the revenue-generating sports at UT?
Technically, they all generate some revenue. But football and men's basketball are usually dubbed revenue-generating sports because they are profitable.
Advertisement
In the 2023-24 fiscal year, UT football made a $73 million profit and men's basketball made an $8 million profit. Women's basketball took a $7 million loss. All other sports, a category that includes baseball, took a $38 million loss.
Facility upgrades can skew those figures in some years. But generally, football and men's basketball subsidize the other sports at most schools. That's where the bulk of revenue is generated through ticket sales, merchandise and TV contracts.
Will every school pay athletes by the same percentages?
Not necessarily. The model in the preliminary House settlement is based on national averages. It calls for schools to pay approximately 75% of revenue to football players, 15% to men's basketball, 5% to women's basketball and 5% to other sports.
Advertisement
Some schools will follow those percentages precisely to abide by the settlement. Others will see that model as a concept, where they can adjust to reflect how their revenue is generated. Conferences may also mandate that every member school pays the same percentages by sport to create a level playing field.
If schools are allowed to adjust those percentages, don't be surprised if some consider spending a little more on women's basketball or baseball for a competitive edge. But that will slice into their football revenue, which carries consequences in the sport that generates the most revenue.
Will revenue sharing end the lawsuits in college sports?
No. If money is distributed based on the revenue each sport generates, female athletes will sue over Title IX. If money is distributed based on gender equity, football or men's basketball players will sue to get the full share of the revenue they generated.
Advertisement
There are reasonable arguments on both sides, especially since this involves publicly funded universities. It's just the latest can of worms in paying college athletes, but certainly not the last.
Is there a ceiling to this pay?
There's a cap of $20.5 million that a school can pay its athletes per year. That is 22% of the average revenue from ticket sales, media rights and sponsorships by Power Four conference schools. That cap will increase each year.
In terms of individual player earnings, there is no cap. Presumably, schools will spread revenue among several players, just like the payroll of a pro team. But a player can earn as much NIL money as the market will pay.
Advertisement
Expect star players to receive money via revenue sharing and NIL. Schools could offset one with the other to maximize their roster, but that requires raising even more money.
Will athletes be under contract?
Yes. They will sign an agreement to receive a specific amount of revenue from the university. Some schools have already signed athletes to preliminary contracts, although those may not be binding.
Presumably, schools would like to standardize income amounts based on player positions to avoid lengthy negotiations with athletes. But there undoubtedly will be bumps in the road.
Will contracts prevent players from entering transfer portal?
In theory, yes. Players under contract would have to pay a buyout to the school to enter the portal. But that's only if schools utilize multi-year contracts, which initially will probably only go to star players.
Advertisement
Granted, a three-star recruit may request a multi-year contract for stability. But in this new transactional era, schools will be less accommodating and probably quicker to cut an under-performing player when their contract expires.
Will UT hire a general manager over roster and payroll?
No, at least not according to the latest plan. Numerous people in the football program and athletics department will collaborate to make those big decisions.
This could challenge football coach Josh Heupel's perspective on roster management. He kept a reasonable distance from NIL dealings, at least compared to other coaches. But in revenue sharing, the school will pay players directly, so Heupel must give plenty of input on payroll.
Advertisement
I don't think UT has to hire a general manager. Heupel earns more than $9 million per year . Danny White earns about $3 million per year as the highest-paid athletics director at a public school . And there are plenty of well-paid staff below them.
They should be able to manage the roster without hiring a general manager.
Will a payroll bring jealousy into the locker room?
Yes. But NIL already does that on some teams. Schools paying players directly will only increase the potential problems.
For the sake of team chemistry, coaches would love for players to not discuss their pay. But good luck enforcing that with young, highly paid, competitive athletes.
Advertisement
What happens when players ask the school for a raise?
The cap will increase each year, so there will be room for rising pay on an individual basis. But negotiations over pay will inform an athlete of their true value.
If their pay is decreased or their request for a raise is denied, they'll face the unvarnished truth. And no matter how much their coach praises them, their pay will reveal their place on the team.
Will revenue sharing be better for players?
In some cases, this could be better for athletes who earn a big payday from the school and NIL.
But I think the players will never have it as good as the NIL era of the past four years. They've had all the leverage, a skyrocketing market and the ability to shop for a better deal every offseason via the transfer portal.
Advertisement
Initially, revenue sharing could drive more money into the market. But it's also the first attempt, albeit a weak one, to apply guardrails to paying players.
Also, revenue sharing could toss college sports into a "survival of the fittest" era, where some Olympic sports may not survive. That's certainly not a good outcome for most college athletes.
Why should UT football players be paid more than national champion baseball players?
This is based on money, not championships. UT baseball is becoming more profitable with its on-field success and increased ticket sales. But no college baseball team can generate as much revenue as a typical college football team.
Advertisement
UT baseball players, at least, have good opportunities to earn NIL money. That's often not the case for elite college athletes in Olympic sports.
TRUMP VS TITLE IX: Factors in how Tennessee pays athletes
So will Olympic sport athletes get nothing?
They will continue to receive athletic scholarships and all the amenities that Division I athletes enjoy. They can also earn NIL money if any is available.
This new model is intended to share revenue with athletes that generate it.
Most college teams in Olympic sports operate at a deficit. Their scholarships, coach pay, equipment, travel, facilities and other expenses far exceed their revenue.
Advertisement
Adam Sparks is the Tennessee football beat reporter. Email adam.sparks@knoxnews.com . X, formerly known as Twitter @AdamSparks . Support strong local journalism by subscribing at knoxnews.com/subscribe .
Get the latest news and insight on SEC football by subscribing to the SEC Unfiltered newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox.
This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Tennessee revenue sharing: Pay athletes by gender equity or profits?
