Richard Kent has followed college sports since the 1960s.
He’s especially passionate about basketball — the Ivy League in particular. Last summer he published “The Madness of Ivy Basketball” — an ode to the 8-team institution.
Kent says that April 7, 2025 will be the most momentous day in American sports history.
The action won’t be on a court, however.
It will be in one.
On that day, final approval is expected for a historic $2.78 billion antitrust lawsuit settlement. The ruling, in California federal court, sets the foundation for athletes to receive money directly from colleges.
The National Collegiate Athletic Conference (NCAA) and 5 power conferences have agreed that schools can directly compensate athletes, for the billions of dollars those students are earning for their institutions.
Since 2021, college athletes can receive “name, image and likeness” (NIL) compensation through third parties, including brand endorsements, merchandise sales and “NIL collectives.”
The April 7 guidelines are also expected to include roster caps for individual sports, which will replace current scholarship limits. For example, men’s lacrosse teams are now limited to a scholarship equivalency of 12.6; women’s teams have 12.
Under the settlement men’s rosters will include up to 48 players, while women’s rosters can expand to 38.
This will have a seismic effect on college athletics, in all sports.
And even though the Ivy League does not permit athletic scholarships, it will be affected, Kent predicts. With money flowing even more freely to athletes at other top colleges — think Virginia, Georgetown and Duke — the Ivies may become less attractive to students in towns like Westport.
Kent is no barstool observer. A Westport resident since 1992, he grew up in New Haven. He sold pennants and programs at the Yale Bowl; is the color commentator for many men’s and women’s basketball games on Yale radio station WYBC, and contributes stories to Ivy Hoops Online.
He is not, however, a Yale alum. Kent calls himself “the proud owner of a rejection letter” from the school. He graduated from Rutgers University, then earned a law degree at Boston College.
His day job is as a litigator. He specializes in fathers’ rights. He’s written 11 books, on subjects ranging from parental law to Roger Federer.
Kent also teaches sports law at Fairfield University’s Dolan School of Business, and Rutgers’ law school.
Richard Kent
With leagues like the Big 10 and SEC soon to be permitted to pay up to $20.5 million directly to athletes — on top of the sums already permitted through NIL collectives and other means (a Duke quarterback just signed a 2-year, $8 million deal; University of Connecticut women’s basketball star Paige Bueckers’ NIL deal is worth more than the WNBA maximum salary) — Kent predicts a “revolution” in college athletics.
One in which the Ivy League will not participate.
As a result, Kent says, they’ll leave themselves far behind.
While the Ivies allow NIL money to be paid to student-athletes, they don’t encourage it. There are no official Ivy League collecticuves (though, Kent says, he knows of at least 3 men’s basketball players being paid by alumni).
Already, that principled stance has caused an exodus. Players have left Yale, Harvard and Penn for Michigan, Georgetown and Villanova, respectively.
“The Ivy recruiting mantra has always been ‘you’re making a 40-year decision, not a 4-year one,” Kent says.
But as the college athletics landscape changes, greater amounts of money in exchange for playing sports will become increasingly attractive.
Of course, not everyone will share equally. Fifty percent of the revenue that will go directly to athletes is earmarked for football players. Another 18% goes to men’s basketball, with 5% to women’s basketball.
The remaining 27% will be divided up by every other sport: lacrosse, soccer, baseball, softball, rowing, ice hockey, etc.
It’s not just the power conferences and Ivy League that will be impacted by the April 7 ruling, Kent notes.
The entire world of college sports — including Division II and III, and the NCAA itself — will be affected.
“I don’t know what the NCAA is anymore,” the attorney, professor and writer says.
“I don’t know what role they’ll play in the future. We’re really looking at what could be semipro athletics.”
Westport athletes (and parents): Take note.
It is already semi-pro athletics at universities with many benefiting but for the students who spend countless hours away from the classroom practicing or playing. As to the almighty Ivy League, which announced in 1954, they would not be granting any pure athletic scholarships, there are countless ways to underwrite tuition allowing the gifted athlete to attend and they have been doing it for decades. Foreign governments are now giving billions, much of which is not being reported despite the law to the contrary. Further, there is a class action lawsuit in a Hartford federal court by a former Brown female athlete who alleges Ivy League schools are basically “price fixing” when they deny an athletic ride. It is time for the jocks/jockettes to benefit for their endless devotion instead of the fat cats who seem to be taking over the entire country?
great article. The fat cats are taking hundreds of bank shots and not missing Cry foul?
The only reason Ivy League schools and other elite colleges consider athletics in admissions is to admit otherwise underqualified wealthy white kids from towns like Westport whose parents have bought and paid for their athletic accomplishments through expensive year-round training starting in elementary school with the specific intent and purpose of gaining an admissions advantage. It’s affirmative action for rich kids. Good riddance.
I seem to always agree with Carl when he comments.
I am an ivy alum (and was a varsity athlete) and I’m really not seeing why this is a problem? Because athletes will choose to go elsewhere? Because other schools might seem more attractive than the ivies? There are so many factors making it seem like the ivies are the one & only goal for all westport (and other) kids — anything that shows that is a facade seems like a good thing?
My source indicates about 6% of Staples graduates go Ivy or Tier 1 schools. So, no worries, UCONN hoops is fun.
You don’t see a problem when student-athletes at 355 universities can receive NIL and benefit from rev share, but somehow, because of abject collusion, 8 universities don’t countenance it? You don’t see a problem when Yale, Harvard and Penn undergrads are leaving for GREENER pastures. Not sure how to respond to that. Richard Kent
Actually, I’m having a hard time understanding what you think the problem is. Athletes going to schools that value sports more than education so are willing to pay them? Not a problem for me. Ivy Schools having athletic teams that can’t compete with professional minor league teams? That’s been the case for decades and hasn’t really hurt anyone that I can tell. “Collusion”? Debatable but it is unclear who is being damaged – athletes that are good enough to be paid as professionals will find their homes, or, I suppose, will decide an Ivy education is more valuable that the minute chance they will move up from the college farm teams to the major league of whatever sport they chose. Or do you want the Long Island Ducks to be forced to offer Juan Soto $765MM?
Part of what I don’t understand is that the ivies haven’t given athletic scholarships before and always lost kids because of that, but I don’t really see that it’s been a huge problem for them overall. They seem to be doing ok.
You say that the ivies “don’t encourage” NIL but they do allow it. Ivy athletes will rarely (if ever) have the allure of an Arch Manning — but they’re allowed to go for that money (and do).
Also — kids are leaving ALL schools, not just the ivies. The transfer portal has made moving schools easy and (too?) common and this is an issue for all college athletics. I suspect there will be changes but it’s definitely not just an issue for the ivies.
The top athletes are not going to the Ivies because they want to go pro eventually and that is not the route to follow if so. Also, me thinks that the Ivies changed their policy in 1954 because they knew they could not compete with other universities in major sports. As such, what better excuse than to say “oh we don’t give athletic scholarships” so we will just play within our own league? With OUR people, you know?
Richard: I played soccer at Yale but, if Woody Hayes had offered me an athletic scholarship to kick field goals for THE Ohio State Buckeyes, I probably would have gone there in a heartbeat. (I’m mostly joking but I was raised on Ohio State football by my dad who was an alum—so an offer from Woody and an opportunity to play for my favorite college football team would have been something to at least think about.)
I have long supported college athletes in revenue-generating sports being able to receive compensation above and beyond athletic scholarships. But I have some questions for you since you seem to be following this so closely.
You wrote above: “The National Collegiate Athletic Conference (NCAA) and 5 power conferences have agreed that schools can directly compensate athletes, for the billions of dollars those students are earning for their institutions.”
But where are these billions going? And why do you think more sports teams aren’t generating profits for their universities?
Ohio State recently released its financial statement for the last fiscal year. Only two teams generated a profit: football and men’s basketball. The overall sports program generated a loss (although that had to with some particulars for that fiscal year).
UCLA’s athletic department recently reported a large deficit for the 6th year in a row—and, as you probably saw, the cumulative deficit over those six years is more than $200 million.
So what exactly are all of these athletes in the vast majority of sports that lose money entitled to receive?
I have no opposition to NIL since those seem to be paid privately by booster collectives and individual companies. But why do you think any portion of school budgets should go to compensating athletes—beyond scholarships—if their individual sports are operating in the red?
Actually, I’m curious why you believe schools should even offer athletic scholarships in the first place in all of those sports where teams are losing money. (By the way, I fully embrace Title IX but, from my perspective, equal opportunities can be provided in sports without the necessity of offering athletic scholarships in sports that lose money.)
Thanks for hearing me out.
I will try to respond:
1. The Ivy was formed as a football conference. Nothing more.
2. Athletic scholarships lead to better teams and enhanced university prestige: see the Flutie factor at BC and the rise of Duke from a Top 50 university to a top 5 university BECAUSE of my good friend, Coach K.
3. Athletic scholarships give opportunities to many less advantaged to attend premier universities and get a great first step in in life.
4. Athletic scholarships lead to huge alumni giving. See Joe Tsai at Yale and the Monday after the Yale-Harvard football game to the victor.
5. The Ivy colluded in 1954 and again 2 weeks ago with the opt out. They should have done it as individual univwersities. It has engendered litigation.
6. Justice Kavanaugh, who played JV basketball at Yale, uttered the words “additional educational benefits” in the Alston case. Carry them forward.
7. 75% of Kentucky frosh said that they attend the university because of its basketball program. Take a look at Alabama, Duke, ND, etc.
8. Stanford has the best overall athletic programs in the country and a Top 5 academic program. How does that happen?
Richard
1) Not exactly. The loose affiliation of primarily northeast schools (aka the Ivy League) existed before the Ivy League was formalized in the 1950’s.
2) As best I can tell, the Ivy’s prestige has historically been driven by educational results as well as the “elites” they have, for better or worse, produced. They do not need athletics to raise their prestige as other schools might.
3) Most (maybe all now?) of the Ivy’s have “needs blind” admissions with economically less advantaged getting a free ride (e.g. academic scholarships) irrespective of whether they can play a sport. Does sports participation facilitate a lowering of academic standards allowing more disadvantaged admissions? Maybe but it may also provide a fig leaf for less qualified affluent legacy kids to get in.
4) The Ivy’s seem to have produced plenty of rich alumni that contribute irrespective of athletic results.
5) Maybe, or maybe they agreed in 1954 that unlike some of their collegiate brethren, they preferred to remain educational institutions rather than minor league sports teams. If it opens them to litigation, I suppose that could be an issue. Having said that, I suppose they could either drop out of D1 or simply abolish varsity sports reverting to “club sports” only which is, effectively, where they started.
6) Huh?
7) Good for them, though it strikes me that their priorities might be screwed up. Funny thing though. Turns out you don’t need to be an athletic powerhouse to attract students. Turns out, many students primarily want an education from their college/university experience with athletic prowess being far down the list of their decision making criteria. It is a separate debate as to which model produces better outcomes for their students though I’m guessing the average Ivy graduate does better than the average Kentucky though, admittedly, there are fewer Ivy graduates in the NBA than Kentucky graduates.
8) I suppose that proves different models can work. For example, MIT is a Top 5 academic program and has, relatively speaking, no meaningful athletic programs. How does that happen?
I have no dog in this fight. But, interestingly, MIT has an inordinate number of intercollegiate athletic teams (though no football). According to a Google search, “they are ranked 10th in the Learfield Directors’ Cup Division III standings which measures overall athletic performance across different sports, placing them among the top Division III athletic programs in the country. They are also the top ranked team in their conference, the NEWMAC.”
No doubt MIT, like other D3 schools, have plenty of sports teams, some of which may be very good vis-a-vis other D3 schools. But they have nothing at the semi-pro level in the major sports that big-name athletic schools have and which Mr Kent seems to think are necessary to be a desired and/or prestigious school. Hence the qualifier, “relatively speaking”.
The student athletes should be compensated for the use of their names on t-shirts and the like which does bring in revenue which is, most likely, not calculated in the school’s financials. A bright young student at Northwestern several years ago suggested that the college athletes form a union whereby they would have some bargaining power. I might add at the Cotton Bowl, the CEO makes all the money at the playoff games, not the schools. They even charge the band members for their seats. The system is flawed and often corrupted as seen with the Ivies. Hopefully the courts will find some resolution?
The “House Settlement” which is being reviewed, and which many see as a momentous event in college athletics, will likely be tossed by the Courts because it effectively sets labor payment levels without having been collectively bargained by the athletes.
While former college athletes who no longer participate can agree to a settlement, a non-negotiated “salary cap” is never going to fly. SCOTUS has been unanimous in their opinions that would signal their view.
Virtually no chance that the House settlement won’t be approved. Only 8 opt out schools. Huge % of student athletes filed 2016-2024 claims. Minimal objections. What is next? Congress will intervene and student-athletes will probably be able to unionize, with perhaps antitrust protection. There are no true caps because on top of rev share will continue to be supra-collectives, so infinity will be the number that student-athletes can earn. Lots of bad info out there.
I still remember seeing a UCONN Huskie male interviewed several days after they won the NCAA basketball title years back. He said he could not even afford a pizza to celebrate. I am sure the powers to be could. Time for change. Thank you Richard for the clarification.