Eye-opening passage in The Athletic's Stewart Mandel's look at the legislation that is being pitched as a way to "save" college sports ...
It's a testament to the power of effective messaging that the NCAA, the conferences and their lobbyists — not to mention Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who co-authored the bill — managed to convince three-fourths of the Senate that the "chaos" of college sports was a crisis in need of federal intervention.
Because it's unclear how the central components of the bill would solve the central components of the so-called crisis.
On Monday, I scrutinized some of the more suspect statements Cruz made during his "College GameDay" appearance this past weekend. Today, I'd like to turn to his Democratic counterpart.
This week, Cantwell rolled out a data-heavy report in a release titled "Runaway Athletics Spending Threatens the Financial Health of America's Colleges." Some of the numbers are undeniably alarming:
++"94 percent of all Division I athletics programs now spend more than they generate."
++"A $520 million increase in institutional support from 2015 to 2025."
++"15.2 percent of budgets being funded by endowments."
Then it goes on to list the biggest causes of those soaring expenses: "From 2005 to 2023, schools saw increases of 322 percent in recruiting costs, nearly 300 percent in sports equipment, around 250 percent in both medical and game day expenses, and more than 200 percent in travel. Coaching salaries increased a whopping 370 percent over the same time period. And the problem is accelerating. Two years after a roughly $20 million roster was considered exceptional, industry surveys in 2026 placed several leading programs at $40 million or more."
The Athletic can confirm the accuracy of that last part.
But notice the end date on the time period she is citing for that data: 2023. The House settlement, which ushered in revenue sharing in college athletics, was not passed until 2025. Which means, at the time of all those listed expenses, schools were still spending $0 on paying their athletes directly. Most name, image and likeness deals at the time were coming from outside collectives.
Yet when it comes to Cantwell's grand solution to this problem, there is only one category of expenses in her and Cruz's entire 171-page bill that would explicitly get capped: revenue sharing, of course. There is no attempt to rein in that 322 percent increase in recruiting costs or 370 percent increase in coaching salaries. (There's probably not much they can do about equipment and travel costs.)
Even that new rev-share cap of $47.5 million doesn't seem likely to result in any immediate decrease in spending, and if anything, schools' combined spending might increase.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7602850/2026/09/18/protect-college-sports-act-athlete-spending/?
Quote from: MU82 on September 20, 2026, 11:34:38 AM++"15.2 percent of budgets being funded by endowments."
I know this is just a small part of the article, but there is nothing "alarming" about this.
What's eye opening? Nothing to see here.
'oooh, the gov't isn't going to tell schools how much they can pay coaches or spend on travel?!?!'. Crazy. pfft
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 20, 2026, 12:27:49 PMWhat's eye opening? Nothing to see here.
'oooh, the gov't isn't going to tell schools how much they can pay coaches or spend on travel?!?!'. Crazy. pfft
But they are going to tell them how much they can pay for players. So yeah....crazy.
Quote from: The Sultan on September 20, 2026, 12:29:24 PMBut they are going to tell them how much they can pay for players. So yeah....crazy.
Sounds like something
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 20, 2026, 12:27:49 PMWhat's eye opening? Nothing to see here.
'oooh, the gov't isn't going to tell schools how much they can pay coaches or spend on travel?!?!'. Crazy. pfft
Data supporting the fact that these self-proclaimed guardians of college sports and of athletic departments' pocketbooks don't give a rat's rump about anything other than limiting athletes' compensation and freedom of movement ... I think that's eye-opening.
If you choose to keep your eyes closed, that's up to you.
Quote from: MU82 on September 20, 2026, 06:30:27 PMData supporting the fact that these self-proclaimed guardians of college sports and of athletic departments' pocketbooks don't give a rat's rump about anything other than limiting athletes' compensation and freedom of movement ... I think that's eye-opening.
If you choose to keep your eyes closed, that's up to you.
The cap more than doubles the current limits, and adds $5M for women's (what is a woman??) and nonrev sports. Oooh, the horror!!
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 20, 2026, 06:33:47 PMThe cap more than doubles the current limits, and adds $5M for women's (what is a woman??) and nonrev sports. Oooh, the horror!!
I thought no one was actually getting much money from schools?
There is only one organization that could farck up the college sports landscape more than the NCAA... and they are on stage!!
Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 20, 2026, 06:36:27 PMI thought no one was actually getting much money from schools?
You think a lot of things that aren't true.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 20, 2026, 06:57:49 PMYou think a lot of things that aren't true.
No, I'm confident you have small hands.
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 20, 2026, 06:33:47 PMThe cap more than doubles the current limits, and adds $5M for women's (what is a woman??) and nonrev sports. Oooh, the horror!!
Yes, limiting compensation and freedom of movement for athletes while letting coaches, administrators and institutions get ever richer ... it's horrible. Glad you agree!!
(What is a woman? That's easy. They're what your hero sexually abused and what his best buddy sex-trafficked.)
Quote from: Jay Bee on September 20, 2026, 06:33:47 PMThe cap more than doubles the current limits, and adds $5M for women's (what is a woman??) and nonrev sports. Oooh, the horror!!
It's a cap that the players would not agree with. It would be imposed upon them by the government.
Strange that you would think that's appropriate.
Quote from: The Sultan on September 20, 2026, 07:12:06 PMIt's a cap that the players would not agree with. It would be imposed upon them by the government.
Strange that you would think that's appropriate.
Capitalists sure love socialism when it suits them.
Quote from: The Sultan on September 20, 2026, 07:12:06 PMIt's a cap that the players would not agree with. It would be imposed upon them by the government.
Strange that you would think that's appropriate.
I don't think the overall scheme is appropriate in the slightest.
Asking the federal government to protect college sports is like asking the major league baseball players for a salary cap. Both should be non-starters.
The problem is not regulation or state/federal law. The problem is the colleges themselves and their failure to have any type of financial perspective. Not to mention the state governments that ostensibly oversee the majority of the Power 4/5 conference schools.
In effect, the colleges are running to Congress to say, "save us from ourselves!" Yeah it's wrapped in nice Deion Sanders and Nick Saban BS. It's like the owners asking the ballplayers to save them from the owners stupidity.
It would be nice if Congress said, "get lost!" They won't, of course, but it would be a refreshing change if Congress did and focused on real issues!
Quote from: dgies9156 on September 21, 2026, 01:55:31 PMIt's like the owners asking the ballplayers to save them from the owners stupidity.
It's worse. In baseball, the players would voluntarily give up their rights. In this case, the players are having their rights limited by a third party.
Matt Brown's view
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/the-protect-college-sports-act-is-a-bad-bill-and-i-hope-it-doesn-t-become-law
More like Matt White
Amendments are being introduced to limit coaches pay as well. Of course they won't pass.
As expected, Cancun Cruz & Co. passed a bill that would increase the power and wealth of institutions, coaches and administrators while limiting the rank-and-file's earnings and freedom of movement.
Uncertain prospects in the House, which has been pretty much closed for business for months and is on vacay again.
Great paragraph by The Athletic's Stewart Mandel:
Five years ago, politicians widely supported granting college athletes NIL rights by an even wider margin. Five years later, two-thirds of the Senate voted to roll some of them back. Originally, they wanted athletes to make money. As it turns out, just not that much money.