College Track and Field Teams are in Trouble: The Real Impact of Revenue Sharing in the NCAA

College track and field has long been a proving ground for many of the world’s top athletes. Whether people pay attention to it or not, the reality is that the NCAA has produced Olympians and world champions. But the landscape of college athletics is shifting dramatically—and fast. As of mid-2025, a new model of revenue sharing is being implemented at the Division I level. While the headlines focus on football, the consequences ripple much further—and track and field could be among the first to suffer.

Why Revenue Sharing Is All About Football

At its core, the new revenue-sharing model is designed to compensate college football players based on their “market value.” The numbers are staggering—$20 million or more per year in some cases, especially when combined with NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals. Basketball may see some benefits too, but football is the main driver.

This massive financial shift has a cost—and that cost is likely to come from non-revenue sports like track and field.

Track and Field’s Precarious Position

The governing body for college track and field, the USTFCCCA, has been actively lobbying to protect the sport. Their proposal: require minimum spending levels for Olympic sports. The goal is to prevent programs from being cut or defunded. On paper, this sounds like a solid plan.

But in practice, it has serious flaws.

Most D1 track and field programs are already fragmented and underfunded. Some offer only cross country, while others combine indoor and outdoor track with limited resources. In many athletic departments, track and field survives only because it helps schools meet the NCAA’s minimum sport requirements—not because it generates revenue or wins championships.

Washington State: A Warning Shot

Take Washington State University as a case study. While its football team remains part of the restructured Pac-12, its track and field program recently slashed funding. They didn’t eliminate the program—because they can’t without falling below NCAA sport minimums—but they gutted it.

All field events were cut, and sprinters and hurdlers were told their events were no longer a priority. Distance events remain, allowing the school to technically keep its team intact. But the competitive integrity of the program? Gone.

This is not just a cost-saving measure—it’s a strategic workaround to comply with NCAA rules while gutting the sport’s resources.

Understanding the NCAA Minimums

Here’s how the system works:

• FCS schools must maintain 14 varsity sports (6 men’s and 8 women’s).

• FBS schools must maintain 16 varsity sports.

Track and field programs often count as three separate sports: cross country, indoor track, and outdoor track. If a school wants to cut costs and is currently above the NCAA minimum, track and field becomes the perfect target. Drop indoor and outdoor, keep cross country, and you’re still compliant.

That’s the dangerous formula athletic departments are starting to use.

Why Track Gets Cut First

Let’s be blunt: track and field is a budgetary loophole.

• Athletes are counted multiple times across three seasons.

• Track doesn’t produce significant revenue.

• Cutting one program can eliminate spending across all three seasons.

From an athletic director’s perspective, it’s a simple numbers game. If you’re over the minimum number of sports and looking to trim the budget, track and field is the easiest cut to make.

Revenue Sharing Is Spreading—And That’s a Problem

More conferences are entering the revenue-sharing conversation. Schools in the MEAC, ASUN, and even NEC have begun discussing or planning for revenue share models. But many of these schools barely offer 50 football scholarships—far short of the 63 previously allowed in FCS or the 105 scholarships now permitted under revenue share.

These schools don’t have the financial infrastructure to support this model. So where will the money come from? You guessed it: Olympic sports like track and field.

A Flawed System Needs a New Solution

If the NCAA wanted to do this right, it should have created a new division for revenue-sharing schools—a Division “Delta,” so to speak. Let the wealthiest programs—think Georgia, Oregon, Alabama—opt in. Keep traditional D1 intact for schools that want to operate under the old model.

Instead, all D1 programs are now being pushed into a financial structure that only a handful can truly afford. And everyone else is scrambling.

What This Means for Athletes and Families

If you’re a student-athlete—or the parent of one—you need to pay close attention. The stability of track and field programs is no longer guaranteed. At Washington State, national-level sprinters were effectively told they no longer had a future on the team. Their best option now is the transfer portal.

That’s not just disappointing—it’s destabilizing. Athletes are making life-changing decisions based on promises that may no longer be honored.

Final Thoughts: Know the Problem Before You Fix It

College track and field is in trouble—not because the sport isn’t valuable, but because it doesn’t fit into a new financial model built entirely around football.

Solutions do exist, but we need to face the truth first. Schools are being asked to spend money they don’t have, and track and field is being sacrificed to make the numbers work.

Until there’s structural reform—possibly even a reimagined NCAA model—track and field will remain on the chopping block. And for many programs, the clock is already ticking.

LOOK GOOD, FEEL GOOD, RUN GOOD.

Shop for SCA apparel to express yourself, because “FAST IS A LIFESTYLE”.