Do you people read? The issue is the NCAA offering more 'educational' benefits to college-athletes. No one is getting salaries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2021/06/21/what-does-supreme-court-decision-against-ncaa-mean-for-name-image-and-likeness/?sh=5ea172dd500c

Yes they survive.

Anonymous wrote:Not so sure...

Kavanaugh: “The bottom line is that the NCAA and its members are suppressing the pay of student-athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student-athletes.”

He said that in his own opinion and it really carries no weight. The colleges will not pay. Some could -- think SEC schools but I do not think anyone would follow. This will take 20-30 years to sort out. People who can sell name should get some coin and they will soon but that is probably it.

Men's soccer surviving the ruling is not the issue.

Not so sure...

Kavanaugh: “The bottom line is that the NCAA and its members are suppressing the pay of student-athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student-athletes.”

no one will get paid. This is about image and likeness money.

I wouldn't care if all "big money" level pre-professional sports were completely severed from the university structure in the United States, and simply migrated to minor league professional teams.

It certainly would be preferable to this stupid system we have now where there is cutthroat competition in sports based on the thinking that it's a ticket to what should be an academic pursuit (studying at university level).

Anonymous wrote:It could have the opposite effect. Better players may choose to go to college now to get paid plus education vs going to pros

You are absolutely insane. This sport cannot support itself with television rights and gate. If the profit generators (men’s football and basketball) must now increase their costs, good-bye cross subsidization. Frankly it is completely wrong that kids who are generating the profits are not only not paid, but subsidizing scholarships for others.

Anonymous wrote:With Power5 colleges now having to pay out significantly higher amounts for football and basketball players, and Title IX requirements extending similar benefits to women’s players - do non-revenue sports like men’s soccer survive at the big sports schools?

That is not what this decision stood for. We are a long long way from that.

I hope so.

If you look at Virginia Tech’s athletic budget (virginia.apa.gov), football and men’s basketball are netting $20M that is essentially paying for the rest of the athletic department. In reality, it’s even more lopsided than that because VT is applying all of their student fees ‘revenue’ to the non-revenue sports. Either way, this ruling would seem to likely result in a significant reduction to the pot of money schools use to fund their non-revenue sports. They could increase student fees, but Virginia has caps on the amount/percentage of dollars that schools can charge for student fees that fund athletics.

Anonymous wrote:With Power5 colleges now having to pay out significantly higher amounts for football and basketball players, and Title IX requirements extending similar benefits to women’s players - do non-revenue sports like men’s soccer survive at the big sports schools?

Fascinating question. Seems entirely unclear to me at this point. One thing I've heard is that if/when colleges were going to be forced to pay market-rate to college basketball/football players, that's when you'd suddently see a drop-off in college sports being so heavily promoted by the universities; the theory seems to be that once colleges were forced to let the players rake in the majority of the money from NCAA sports, they would lose the gravy train that they've had going for decades and would lose interest overall.

I have no idea how it will turn out. The idea that the federal government is involved in babysitting adults in universities and influencing what ball games adults can/can't play at universities has always seemed insane to me. It results in whacky human behavior, like a surge in crazy "girls soccer" parents who are involved because they think it's their daughter's ticket to college. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" lol.

I guess time will tell. I've long thought that all sports would be best-suited by a minor-league-to-major-league pathway, rather than this fantasy we have now of university "students" being the minor leagues. These "student athletes" are just minor league ball players recruited to play sports and make money for the school, and everyone knows it.

It could have the opposite effect. Better players may choose to go to college now to get paid plus education vs going to pros

It survives at smaller schools without a big basketball/football program, so I'd assume it will survive at big schools too.

With Power5 colleges now having to pay out significantly higher amounts for football and basketball players, and Title IX requirements extending similar benefits to women’s players - do non-revenue sports like men’s soccer survive at the big sports schools?