Big 12 leaders embrace House v. NCAA revenue-sharing options but impact on Title IX, budgeting remains unclear

IRVING, Texas — “Uncertainty” was the word that was trending when Big 12 leaders gathered for spring business meetings this week in the wake of the House v. House deal.

As part of the proposed agreement, which is still pending court approval, Football Bowl Subdivision institutions could finance a revenue-sharing model that could reach up to $22 million in its first season. The number is projected to be more than 20% of many Power Four athletic departments’ budgets, a massive line item addition expected to take effect in the fall of 2025.

“We have 12 or 14 months here probably before we have to figure out what we’re doing in that first year of allocation,” Baylor president Linda Livingstone told CBS Sports. “I think that’s going to be the biggest issue… in some ways, you’re working on models without understanding the whole playing field yet.”

Livingstone clarified that college athletics leaders knew a major deal was a possibility for more than a year, giving them time to plan for a major budget blowout. She is optimistic that schools will try to avoid cutting sports and emphasized the impact of college athletics on the development of Olympic sports around the world. But even after the terms have been publicly agreed, university officials still face numerous implementation issues.

Schools will also take a multimillion-dollar cut from the NCAA as part of the $2.8 bill settlement, increasing the total cost of the proposed spending changes to about $30 million for fully funded athletic departments. At this point, revenue sharing distribution remains an optional program. It is unclear at this time exactly how many FBS institutions will attempt to fully fund the maximum share of available revenues.

“From what I’ve heard and the involvement I’ve had, I can tell you we’re going to compete at a very high level,” Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark said. “And making the right investments is part of competing at a high level. I anticipate we will do what we need to do when it comes to the cap.”

Yormark declined to guarantee that all 16 member schools will fully fund revenue sharing. The Big 12 legacy schools were distributed just under $40 million each, a slight dilution of previous shares. The former Group of Five schools — BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF — earned $18 million and will receive just $19 million before the 2025 season, meaning the full revenue-sharing option would completely eliminate their distribution of revenue. Big 12 for one season.

Starting in 2025 with a new television contract, all 16 Big 12 schools will receive full participation. Taking into account an increase in College Football Playoff pay, the average team pay could grow closer to $50 million. Other avenues for generating revenue have also emerged. Among the ideas conveyed to Big 12 officials were sponsorship logos on playing surfaces and patches on jerseys. The NCAA plans to consider allowing both. Private equity investment has been approached but has not received much traction.

“I think it’s up to the conference to do more and provide more resources, and I’m focused on that,” Yormark said. “We spend a lot of time with ADs, talking about how they can increase their own resources on campus.”

Livingstone was involved in the search for Yormark and NCAA President Charlie Baker, both of whom came from outside college athletics. Yormark was an executive in the world of professional sports and entertainment, while Baker was the former governor of Massachusetts. Both administrators entered the college sports space with much more aggressiveness than legacy administrators.

“I think that’s been part of our problem in college athletics for a number of years…we were reactive to things and never moved forward with where things were going,” Livingstone said. “We were always behind. And I think now with people like Brett and Charlie, we’re trying to catch up and move forward so we can move more in the direction we’re going rather than being dragged along the way. I think we have to keep to do that in the world we are in today.”

Perhaps the most uncertain factor facing the revenue sharing program outlined in House v. NCAA is the impact of Title IX. There is little clarity at this point around who will make the decisions around revenue distribution — specifically, what will be left up to the schools and conferences versus what will be decided at the NCAA or even legal level? Many hope that an act of Congress can help clarify the issue, but any strong action during an election cycle is unlikely.

Yahoo Sports reports that some SEC chairs believe they could use the settlement’s payment terms as a guideline to get around Title IX. Early reports claim that up to 90% of the settlement payments could go to football and men’s basketball players.

Livingstone rejected the idea that the agreement could clarify Title IX obligations. On the one hand, the agreement can only be finalized next year, giving schools little time to build a model. Furthermore, it is unclear whether Title IX applies to retroactive payment in any meaningful way. Ultimately, schools will not be able to fully clarify their revenue sharing models until all guidelines are finalized.

“I see this as kind of a reset for our industry,” Yormark said. “And we’re prepared for it. The ADs, myself, the board, we’ve been discussing this reset for some time, so it’s not a surprise.”