As of this school year, the Big 12 has emerged as one of the biggest spenders in total name, image and likeness compensation. New reporting by The Athletic is pulling into question whether schools should disclose what they pay athletes.
The financial viability of our favorite teams and alma maters hangs on this idea that the moneypit will simply hold out forever. Maybe your Alabamas or Michigans of the world will survive, but what about Houston or Utah?
Transparency in what we’re paying student-athletes, a term more and more losing its meaning, feels like a good place to start.
Tax dollars and other general university funds – whether from donors or tuition costs – are ultimately paying these athletes. That well will certainly dry up within the next few years, and a few schools are already getting ready.
Utah, as mentioned above, is taking steps to survive in the new climate with a $500 million deal with a private equity firm, Otro Capital, that creates a separate entity for all business-related purposes related to the school’s athletics teams.
It’s a new, expensive world and schools are trying to keep up. They already have to report NIL agreements – payments largely not available to the public eye.
What is the Big 12, On Average, Paying Players?
In total, the Big 12 is spending roughly $46,000 per athlete in compensation, but it’s important to understand this figure is heavily skewed by football and men’s basketball – the two leading cash cows in the conversation.
Alone, football drives a hard bargain when weighed against other programs. Much of a football program’s budget is spent on cultivating an offense, too.
In short, the Big 12 can’t wholistically force these salaries to become public, considering most already “report” figures to the NCAA as a result of the House vs. NCAA settlement, enabling direct revenue sharing with athletes. Other roadblocks, including NIL privacy laws in states like Kansas, Texas, and Utah, muddy the waters further.
The thing is, these schools fought to pay their athletes as if they were another employee of the university, but are now refusing to disclose those numbers publicly, as we do for any other public, state-funded institution.
