Session 1: NCAA Governance, Revenue Sharing, and Ownership Models Study Guide

Institutional Context: This session is hosted by the Department of Kinesiology at the University of Maryland.
Focus Areas: The primary focus of the session is on the ownership and governance structures within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).
Learning Objectives:
- Describe the overall governance models across the college sports landscape.
- Explain revenue sharing mechanisms and ownership models.
- Analyze revenue and expenses at various levels within collegiate athletics.
- Understand student-athlete benefits, specifically focusing on the evolution of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) protections and their implementation.

August 2014 Governance Revision: The NCAA underwent a significant governance revision designed to create a more streamlined process for both legislative and policy-related issues. The revision aimed to improve clarity and engagement for student-athletes.
NCAA Board of Directors (Division I): This body serves as the overall governing entity for Division I. Its responsibilities encompass strategy, policy, governance, management, and the establishment of academic standards. The board consists of a total of $24$ members, distributed as follows:
- $20$ University Presidents.
- $1$ Female Administrator.
- $1$ Athletics Director.
- $1$ Faculty Athletics Representative.
- $1$ Student-Athlete.

Committee on Academics:
- Membership: Consists of $20$ total members, which includes $2$ university presidents.
- Functions: This committee manages all policies related to academic standards and reporting. It reports directly to the Board of Directors and forwards legislative proposals to the Administrative Committee.
Administrative Committee:
- Membership: A larger body consisting of $40$ members.
- Composition: Includes representatives from various conferences, student-athletes, and faculty athletics representatives.
- Responsibilities: Manages day-to-day non-academic decisions, policy implementation, and legislative matters. It is also responsible for the formation of ad hoc groups.
Supporting Committees: The broader mission of the NCAA is supported by specialized groups, including:
- Division I Committees.
- Association-wide Committees.
- Sport-related Committees.

Impact of the 2025 Restructure: A notable restructure occurred in $2025$ aimed at improving efficiency by reducing the total number of committees and increasing the formal representation of student-athletes.
Financial and Scholarship Reforms:
- Introduction of new roster limits.
- Implementation of direct revenue sharing.
- Updates to basketball fund distributions.
New Oversight Mechanisms:
- NIL GO Platform: Established to track and manage third-party Name, Image, and Likeness deals.
- College Sports Commission: Created to oversee compliance and the management of revenue sharing.

Distribution Hierarchy: Revenue flows in a top-down hierarchy: $NCAA \rightarrow \text{Conferences} \rightarrow \text{Individual Member Institutions}$ .
Estimated 02/2025 National Revenue Distribution:
- Total Estimated Revenue: $\$1,300,000,000$
- Distribution to Schools/Conferences: Nearly $62\%$ of the total revenue is distributed directly back to member institutions and their respective conferences.
Revenue Sources: Historically, the vast majority of NCAA revenue is cemented in media rights and tournament income.
Conference-Level Distribution: Within the Power $4$ conferences, approximately $70\%$ to $90\%$ of generated revenue is typically distributed back to the member athletic departments on an annual basis.

Basketball Performance Funds: These are critical payouts based on tournament participation, calculated over rolling periods. In January $2026$ , this was expanded to include distribution units for professional milestones such as the championship game and the national title. Notably, women's basketball performance funds now mirror the men's system.
Value-Based Distribution:
- Academic Enhancement and Performance Funds: Rewards schools that meet specific academic benchmarks, including graduation rates and academic progress scores.
Broad-Based Participation Funds: Rewards institutions for maintaining a wide variety of athletic programs within their departments.
Special Assistance and Excellence Funds: These provide direct support for non-athletic student-athlete needs, such as medical expenses or travel. These are divided into:
- Student Assistant Fund.
- Conference Grants (designed to help conference offices manage administration and compliance).
Primary Distribution Factors: The NCAA determines funds based on three specific pillars:
1. Total number of athletic scholarships provided.
2. Total number of sponsored sports.
3. Performance of teams in basketball tournaments.

House vs. NCAA Settlement (2026): This landmark settlement fundamentally shifted the financial landscape by allowing direct payments to athletes.
Compensation Caps: Direct payments to student-athletes are capped at $22\%$ of the average Power $4$ conference revenue.
Classification of Payments: To maintain the distinction of "student-athlete" status and differentiate them from employees, these payments are classified legally as revenue sharing rather than salaries.

Program Profitability: The landscape of college athletics is highly competitive but financially difficult. Only approximately $15$ to $25$ Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) programs have demonstrated long-term financial sustainability.
Competitive Dynamics: The scarcity of profitable programs informs the competitive nature of athlete acquisition and the debate over how schools that are not in that top tier can compete in the new model of student compensation.

Discussion Prompt: "Share your thoughts on the impacts of student-athletes receiving compensation for their participation in intercollegiate athletics."
Specific Considerations: Participants are asked to consider the impacts of this compensation on:
- Individual student-athletes.
- Universities.
- Conferences.
- The NCAA as an organization.
Landscape Analysis: How do these changes fundamentally alter the landscape of the sports industry and collegiate education?