College athletics is undergoing a significant transformation. In the landmark House v. NCAA agreement, the NCAA and the four power conferences—ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC—have reached a $2.8 billion settlement, allowing schools to begin directly sharing revenue with athletes, up to an estimated $20.5 million annually per institution.
While this is a victory for player compensation, it raises serious concerns about what happens to non-revenue sports. Critics warn the shift will widen the gap between rich and small programs. It also may have devastating consequences for women’s sports, including basketball, which had been rapidly gaining momentum.
Analyst Paul Finebaum Raises Concerns About Funding Gaps, Future of Women’s Athletics
ESPN college sports analyst Paul Finebaum shared his perspective on the possible consequences of the new system, particularly for women’s sports. While the agreement is designed to bring fairness to college athlete compensation, Finebaum expressed concern that it could also create unintended disparities.
“The real casualty of all this, I believe, is going to be the one part of college athletics that has grown so much,” Finebaum said on SportsCenter. “We watched the Women’s [Softball] World Series last night, a million-dollar pitcher, by the way, for Texas Tech. Women’s sports, I think, are going to suffer from this.”
According to Finebaum, the revenue-sharing model may lead to a redistribution of funds that prioritizes high-earning sports, such as football and men’s basketball. As universities allocate their $20.5 million in athlete payments, budget decisions may become more concentrated.
“If you’re one of these Ohio States or Alabamas, and you’re dividing up $20.5 million, you know where most of it’s going—it’s going to football,” he added. “That’s really a major casualty.”
This comes at a time when women’s basketball has seen major growth in popularity and viewership. Programs like Iowa, LSU, and South Carolina have become national attractions, and stars like Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese have helped elevate the sport’s visibility.
The concern is that this progress could be challenged if schools are forced to prioritize funding based on revenue generation alone.
House v. NCAA‘s Long-Term Impact on College Sports Programs
The NCAA settlement introduces sweeping changes to college athletics, but its effects are expected to vary widely across institutions and sports. While larger programs with substantial resources may be able to integrate the new revenue-sharing model with fewer challenges, smaller schools and non-revenue sports could face financial pressures.
This has prompted discussions about the future viability of programs that do not generate major income, including many in women’s athletics.
“College athletics did this to themselves,” Finebaum said. “They’re not really suffering for it, because it’s a billion-dollar industry, but it’s going to be very uneven in the future. I think, at some point, fans are going to start tuning out. There’s such an existential threat to what we grew up loving, and we still do. It’s not going to be the same anymore.”
RELATED: ‘Ramifications Will Be Punitive’—Big 12’s Brett Yormark Issues Stern Warning After NCAA House Settlement
As the new system takes shape, institutions may need to evaluate how they allocate resources to ensure continued support for a broad range of sports.
Ongoing discussions around equity, sustainability, and access will likely play a key role in shaping the next phase of college athletics. This is particularly true for programs that have experienced rapid recent growth, such as women’s basketball.
College Sports Network has you covered with the latest news, analysis, insights, and trending stories in college football, men’s college basketball, women’s college basketball, and college baseball!
