Can NCAA Track and Field Survive Revenue Sharing?: What to Expect in an Uncertain Future for the Sport
If you’re a fan of track and field and want to witness some of the fastest athletes on the planet, you don’t need to look any further than NCAA competition. I had the opportunity to attend the NCAA Division I East Regional meet this year, and what I saw there was nothing short of world-class. Abdul-Rasheed Saminu of the University of South Florida clocked an astonishing 9.86 seconds in the 100 meters—at the time, the fastest legal time recorded globally.
But the excitement didn’t end there. Mere moments later, I received news from the West Regional meet: Jordan Anthony had just run a jaw-dropping 9.75 seconds, albeit with a slightly wind-aided 2.1 m/s reading—still the fastest time in the world under all conditions. For added context, Anthony isn’t just a sprinter; he’s also a football player, making his performance even more compelling.
Revenue Sharing for College Athletes is Here
What’s even more ironic is what unfolded during the week between these meets. As headlines celebrated these sprinting feats, the NCAA quietly dropped a seismic announcement: for the first time in history, institutions will be allowed to directly pay athletes. They’re calling it revenue sharing. By now, you’ve likely seen coverage describing this as the end of amateurism, a long-overdue win for student-athletes, and the dawn of a new era in college sports.
That might all be true—sort of. But what’s missing from most of the mainstream conversation is the impact this shift will have on non-revenue sports like track and field. From the beginning, I’ve been deeply concerned about what this change really means for Division I track programs. Because let’s be honest: when revenue starts flowing to athletes, it’s not going to all of them. And if you’re not in the revenue-generating group, what happens to your opportunity?
Track and field is often casually grouped into the broad category of “Olympic sports” or “non-revenue sports,” barely mentioned by name. But even before this policy shift was finalized, Sam Seemes, the CEO of the NCAA’s track and field governing body, warned that the sport was “under siege”—that the threats to its survival were very real and increasingly immediate. He wasn’t exaggerating. Cuts are likely. Rosters could shrink. Entire programs might disappear. And yes, coaches could lose their jobs. Without teams, there’s no one left to coach.
Now that the settlement is, at least partially, in place, it’s time to talk openly about what’s coming. I’ve seen this freight train approaching for a while, and a lot of what’s happening now is exactly what I—and others—have been warning about.
I care deeply about this sport and the athletes who pour their hearts into it. Whether you’re currently competing or hoping to in the future, you deserve the full picture. That’s what this article aims to provide: a real, unfiltered look at how revenue sharing will reshape the college track and field landscape—starting now.
And if you think this is an exaggeration or an overreaction, I genuinely hope you’re right. But from where I’m standing, the sky is falling—and it’s headed straight for programs like yours. So before we go any further, let me offer one piece of advice: get yourself an umbrella. A strong one. You’re going to need it.
Who’s Getting Paid—and How
Before diving into the implications for track and field, it’s critical to understand how this new financial model in college athletics is structured and who stands to benefit. The NCAA recently reached a landmark settlement—specifically with the four remaining power conferences: the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and ACC. The once-prominent Pac-12 has effectively dissolved as a power player in this equation.
Even among the remaining four, a clear hierarchy exists. The SEC and Big Ten are positioned at the top, followed by the Big 12 and the ACC. This internal pecking order will heavily influence how resources are allocated and which athletes benefit from the upcoming changes.
As part of the $2.8 billion settlement, these conferences are addressing back pay claims from athletes dating back to 2016—essentially compensating for years when athletes were barred from earning their market value under the NCAA’s amateurism model. While Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights have existed for a few years, the major shift now is that schools will be able to directly pay athletes. NIL won’t go away, but it’s no longer the only mechanism for compensation.
Beginning in the 2025–2026 season, schools will have the option to distribute up to $20.3 million annually in direct payments to athletes across their athletic departments. While this is technically a “salary cap,” schools are not required to spend the full amount—though wealthier programs almost certainly will. And while this cap applies to all sports collectively, the overwhelming expectation is that football will absorb the lion’s share, followed—at a distance—by men’s basketball.
Commentators like Josh Pate have already made clear assumptions: nearly all of this money will go to football players, with little to no consideration for other sports. And since additional NIL funds and booster-backed collectives will still operate in parallel, this “cap” is more of a loose guideline than a strict limit. A new clearinghouse is also being established to monitor and regulate NIL deals more transparently—a response to the chaotic, unregulated state of athlete compensation in recent years.
Here’s the critical point: everything described so far applies to the power conferences only. And more importantly, almost none of it meaningfully includes or protects track and field programs.
What This Means for SEC, B1G, Big 12, and ACC Track and Field
For track and field programs within power conferences, the new financial landscape presents a harsh reality: these teams are now seen as costly line items rather than integral parts of the collegiate athletic mission. In the past, the rationale for supporting non-revenue sports was rooted in the student-athlete model—schools justified large travel budgets and full rosters because providing a comprehensive college experience was part of the mission.
That rationale is fading. Under the new model, where athletes are seen as revenue participants deserving fair pay, the logic shifts: if a team doesn’t generate revenue, why invest in it? Flights across the country for meets, equipment transport, coaching salaries, and scholarship costs all add up—and administrators will start asking hard questions.
And it’s not hypothetical. The travel costs alone are massive. Consider that Rutgers (New Jersey) flew a full track and field squad to the University of Oregon for a conference meet in 2025. Events like these require flying with poles, javelins, and other implements—gear that typically fits better on a bus than in the cargo hold. Multiply this across dozens of athletes on both the men’s and women’s rosters, and the expenses become difficult to justify in a results-driven, revenue-focused model.
Even worse, these meets often draw minimal fan attendance. At the NCAA East First Round meet, spectators consisted mostly of parents, coaches, and perhaps a few distant relatives—hardly the crowds seen in football or basketball arenas. That lack of visibility translates directly into a lack of leverage when budgets are being decided.
In this new era, track programs that are not consistently winning at the conference or national level are at risk. Simply put, they become unsustainable financial burdens. Schools may now tell athletes—quietly and unceremoniously—that their roster spots are gone, encouraging them to enter the transfer portal. This is already happening, and it’s largely driven by one thing: money.
Football remains the top priority. Schools struggling to remain competitive on the gridiron, especially those in the lower half of the ACC or Big 12, are under increasing pressure to allocate every available dollar toward football talent retention. Track and field doesn’t even enter the conversation.
Historically, track teams could operate with around 12 scholarships on the men’s side if their administration was supportive. Even that number will be difficult to sustain moving forward. And if, as many expect, the power conferences eventually break away from the rest of the NCAA—at least in football—that could create further instability, leaving Olympic sports behind entirely.
What will be the future for Power Conference Track and Field Teams
The growing divide between “haves” and “have-nots” in college sports will only widen. As ESPN’s Paul Finebaum noted in an appearance on The Dan Patrick Show, “College football is the real winner in all of this. College basketball will take a step back. Women’s sports will be hurt. And Olympic sports will get crushed.” Track and field, unfortunately, is among those Olympic sports.
Even within the well-funded power conferences, track teams are not safe. New roster caps—45 athletes for most, 35 for men’s teams in the SEC—are being introduced. But these caps do not come with spending mandates. Schools are under no obligation to fund all their scholarships, and many have no plans to do so. These policies may look fair on paper, but they were clearly designed with football in mind.
As a result, opportunities in collegiate track and field will shrink. Fewer athletes will get to compete at the Division I level, even if those who remain may see marginally increased scholarship support. Particularly on the women’s side, there may be more concentrated resources for a smaller number of athletes—but overall team sizes are expected to decline.
It’s highly likely that some programs will be cut altogether—and soon. While it’s impossible to name specific schools yet, the writing is on the wall. Unless drastic action is taken to protect non-revenue sports, many track and field athletes will be left without a team, without support, and without a future in the sport at the collegiate level.
The Financial Divide in FBS Athletics - What happens to non-power conference teams
When you leave the power conferences, that’s where things get far more interesting—and dire. For schools playing FBS football but not affiliated with the Power Four, survival is now a financial battle. These programs don’t have lucrative television deals or the deep donor bases required to support a revenue-sharing model. Most of them have relied heavily on fundraising and booster contributions just to keep up with the demands of NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) expectations.
In recent months, several programs have openly acknowledged that their NIL strategies are grounded in basic grassroots fundraising, not institutional support. These schools lack the financial power to offer anything close to the $20 million revenue-sharing numbers being floated by the top conferences. Among non-power conferences, only the American Athletic Conference has made any serious attempt to opt into the new model, and even they admit that they’re struggling to land on a realistic financial commitment.
Football at All Costs
The implications for non-revenue sports like track and field are stark. Schools in Conference USA, the Sun Belt, the Mountain West, and similar leagues are simply trying to survive. For them, funding enough scholarships to field a competitive men’s track team—typically around 12 full scholarships—has already been a stretch. Now, with football carrying the financial and branding burden of an entire athletic department, there’s even less room for anything else. The “have-nots,” as ESPN’s Paul Finebaum called them, are falling further behind.
The reality is harsh: if you’re an athletic director at one of these institutions, and you’re trying to fund a football team that can even resemble competitiveness, cutting track and field—especially men’s teams—may be one of the only options. Before this new era of NIL and revenue sharing, conferences like the Mid-American had already begun cutting men’s track programs. Only a handful remain.
The Quiet Demise of Mid-Tier Division I
This is the trajectory many expect for most non-power FBS conferences in the coming years. Program cuts won’t happen all at once, but they’ll occur gradually—one school here, another there—until a critical mass is reached. And when a track program disappears, it often doesn’t return.
Meanwhile, Division I schools at the FCS level, or those that don’t play football at all, may see minimal immediate changes. These schools are unlikely to opt into revenue-sharing and will largely continue business as usual. But the writing is on the wall. Without NIL and revenue share dollars, athletes at these schools won’t receive much—if any—financial benefit from their institutions. These schools are poised to become little more than feeder programs, talent banks for more powerful institutions looking to cherry-pick elite performers via the transfer portal.
A New Two-Tier Division I Reality
The disparity is creating a de facto tiered system within Division I. We can now categorize programs into three groups:
Power 4 – The SEC and Big Ten, which command enormous media deals and have the resources to lead this new era. However, the Big 12 and ACC will attempt to keep pace financially.
Middle-Tier FBS – Programs trying to hang on, such as those in the American, Mountain West, and Sun Belt.
FCS and Non-Football D1 – Programs that are technically Division I, but operating in an entirely different reality.
Group Three—what some are calling “Division I-AA”—will increasingly resemble D2 or D3 programs in function if not in name. They lack revenue-sharing capacity, television visibility, and the competitive infrastructure of the top schools. Athletes and recruits will begin to realize that the “Division I” label doesn’t mean what it once did. Visits to a Big Ten campus and a small FCS school both carry the D1 tag, but they represent two entirely different worlds.
The Consequences for Track and Field
Track and field may be the sport hit hardest by these developments. With football devouring department budgets, track becomes expendable. And because it’s a sport that—unlike basketball or football—already struggles to generate revenue or media attention, its future hinges almost entirely on the financial philosophy of athletic departments. Already, men’s teams are at higher risk due to Title IX proportionality requirements. Women’s teams may hold on longer but are far from safe.
Historically, mid-major track programs could still be competitive nationally with strong coaching and full scholarship funding. But those days may be over. The few programs still funding the full allotment of scholarships will find it increasingly hard to justify those costs when competing against schools with superior financial backing, facilities, and NIL incentives.
Redefining Division I in Track and Field
In some ways, the NCAA may need to admit what has already become obvious: Division I needs restructuring. In most sports, competitive alignment exists (FBS vs. FCS in football, for instance), but in track and field, everyone competes in the same championships. That may no longer be viable.
If the sport wants to remain relevant and equitable, separate competitive tiers or championships may need to be established. Without that, mid- and lower-tier programs will exist only to fill out fields at nationals, never truly contending.
D2 and D3: A Stable but Limited Future
Division II and III programs have largely stayed out of the NIL and revenue-share arms race. Athletes may still receive small NIL deals—typically in the form of grants or sponsorships worth a few hundred dollars—but the impact is minimal. These divisions remain focused on access and experience, not professionalization. Ironically, this may position them as the more sustainable path forward for athletes who want to compete meaningfully without being swept up in the financial and competitive volatility of modern D1.
Track’s Reckoning Has Arrived
The future of college track and field is uncertain, and perhaps more than any other sport, it must confront the reality of a transformed college athletics landscape. The CEO of College Track said it best in his end-of-year remarks to coaches: the sport must evolve if it wants to survive. Yet the pace of change in college sports may have already outstripped track and field’s ability to respond.
For decades, track athletes have competed under a model that, while flawed, offered opportunity and development. Now, that model is being erased. In its place is a stratified, revenue-driven system where only the strongest survive—and even they may struggle. NIL has opened doors for some athletes, but it’s not a solution for all. In many ways, the collegiate model of track and field is fraying at the edges.
Without a bold, structural shift from the NCAA and institutional stakeholders, the sport risks becoming a shell of its former self—relevant only in name, not in competitive impact.
LOOK GOOD, FEEL GOOD, RUN GOOD.
Shop for SCA apparel to express yourself, because “FAST IS A LIFESTYLE”.