Revenue-sharing’s biggest flaw is already showing: college sports may not be able to enforce its own cap
College sports’ new revenue-sharing model was designed to impose order on a chaotic marketplace, but early signs suggest the system may be easier to work around than to police. As schools continue to funnel money into football and explore indirect spending channels, the cap risks becoming more of a financial guideline than a true restraint.
CHICAGO — Revenue-sharing was supposed to bring discipline to college athletics’ rapidly escalating financial model. Instead, it is quickly exposing a deeper business problem: whether the new system can actually be enforced in a marketplace built to reward aggressive spending.
When the House settlement received final approval in June, it ushered in a new era for college sports with a $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap that is expected to rise each year. On paper, the structure was meant to create clarity, limit excess and help restore some competitive balance.
In practice, the biggest question remains unanswered: is the cap real?
Michigan coach Dusty May raised that concern ahead of Friday’s game against Alabama, arguing that the way schools are allocating money — especially in football — suggests the system is already straining against its own limits.
“When they [announced] these numbers, I thought, ‘Wow, is everyone going to be under this cap?'” May said. “And then, football spends three times — I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it. I have my own opinions on where the game needs to go and why we failed our sport for so long as coaches and administrators to let it get to this point.
“But ultimately, it’s our fault. We’ve been making these decisions on such an obtuse level for so long that now it’s blown up in our face. So now we have a responsibility to fix it and to make sure it’s equitable and fair for everyone.”
That critique cuts to the core of the business model now taking shape. Revenue-sharing was introduced as a reform mechanism, but the early economics suggest the industry is still operating like an arms race, with football absorbing the largest share of resources and schools using multiple funding streams to extend their spending power beyond the headline cap.
Roster costs have continued to rise since revenue-sharing began. Reporting around Sweet Sixteen programs showed that top schools are still willing to invest heavily to gain an advantage, while Opendorse data indicated that college men’s basketball teams received an average of $4.2 million in revenue-share dollars in 2025-26.
Even with a cap in place, athletic departments are already looking for ways to push spending higher through multimedia rights agreements, apparel partnerships and corporate sponsorships. That reality has fueled a growing concern among industry observers: the new model may function less like a hard ceiling and more like a flexible framework for well-resourced programs to keep widening the gap.
May said he continues to hear the figures and the rumors around how schools are structuring their budgets, but he is unconvinced the cap is truly binding.
“I don’t know,” he said. “I’ve heard the numbers. I’ve heard from agents. It doesn’t seem as though the rev-share number is any type of hard cap. Or soft cap.”
That uncertainty is what makes the revenue-sharing era so disruptive. College athletics has entered a new compensation model, but the systems needed to enforce it are still catching up. For athletic departments, the challenge is no longer simply sharing revenue with athletes — it is proving the model can withstand the same financial escalation it was created to contain.
Why It Matters
College sports’ new revenue-sharing model was designed to impose order on a chaotic marketplace, but early signs suggest the system may be easier to work around than to police. As schools continue to funnel money into football and explore indirect spending channels, the cap risks becoming more of a financial guideline than a true restraint.
Content Package
Dusty May calls out college sports’ revenue-sharing reality: a “cap” that may not be enforceable. With football leveraging extra funding channels, the question shifts to competitive balance.
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#SportsBusiness
Dusty May’s critique gets to the uncomfortable business question behind college sports’ revenue-sharing era: is there really a cap—or just a new framework wealthy programs can work around? Revenue-sharing was sold as structure for a rapidly changing financial model, highlighted by a $20.5M cap expected to rise annually. But a year into the new system, the biggest issue isn’t the headline number—it’s enforceability. May pointed to football’s outsized ability to absorb resources and build roster value through channels that can sit outside the spirit of the cap. That matters, because competitive balance only works if spending limits are meaningful and compliance is consistent. The early economics suggest the opposite trend. Roster costs continue to climb, and reporting around Sweet Sixteen spending indicates top programs remain willing to invest heavily to gain an edge. Data cited from Opendorse—showing men’s basketball teams averaging $4.2M in revenue-share dollars in 2025–26—also underscores how quickly “new money” becomes “arms race” money. Even with a cap in place, athletic departments are exploring ways to push spending higher via multimedia rights, apparel partnerships, and corporate sponsorships. The concern: the system may function less like a hard ceiling and more like a flexible framework that reinforces existing advantages. For leaders in college athletics, the challenge is no longer just compensating athletes. It’s proving the model can withstand the financial incentives it was designed to control—through enforcement, compliance infrastructure, and true equity. The revenue-sharing era may have changed the rules of the labor market. Now it’s testing whether the business model can be regulated in practice.
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#SportsBusiness
Revenue-sharing was supposed to bring structure… but Dusty May says the “cap” may not be real. Football’s spending channels + rising roster costs = competitive balance in question. #CollegeBasketball #NIL #CollegeSports #RevenueSharing #DustyMay #SportsBusiness #Compliance #SportsEconomics
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#SportsBusiness
Dusty May is raising a major concern about college sports’ revenue-sharing era: whether the $20.5M cap is truly enforceable. With football expected to spend far more and departments finding ways to expand budgets through other deals, competitive balance may be harder to achieve than reformers promised.
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#SportsBusiness
Dusty May says college sports’ “revenue-sharing cap” might not be a real limit. In the NIL/revenue-sharing era, the headline is a $20.5 million cap—supposed to bring structure. But May points to a bigger problem: enforcement and whether schools can still spend aggressively, especially in football. He suggests football can leverage other funding channels—so the system doesn’t act like a hard cap, but more like a flexible guideline. And if the top programs keep finding ways to invest more, the competitive balance the reforms promised could be slipping. So the question is: can college sports control the arms race—or just rename it? #CollegeSports #RevenueSharing #NIL #DustyMay
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#SportsBusiness
Dusty May just called out a major issue with college sports revenue-sharing: is the cap actually enforceable? Revenue-sharing was meant to bring structure—starting with a $20.5 million cap. But May says the numbers don’t look like a true ceiling, especially with football expected to spend far more than other programs. He argues schools may be able to build roster value through additional funding channels, turning the cap into more of a framework than a hard limit. Meanwhile, roster costs keep rising, and top programs are still willing to invest heavily to gain an edge. So what’s the real challenge now? Not just paying athletes—it’s proving the business model can withstand the financial incentives it was designed to control. Competitive balance is on the line. #CollegeBasketball #SportsBusiness #RevenueSharing
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#SportsBusiness
Revenue-sharing was meant to create a real cap—but coaches say it may not be enforceable. Dusty May questions whether football spending can keep stacking beyond the $20.5M limit. Is it a ceiling or just a guideline?
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#NIL
Revenue-sharing was supposed to bring discipline to college athletics’ escalating financial model. But early signals suggest the biggest flaw may be enforcement—specifically, whether the new cap is actually binding in a marketplace that still rewards aggressive spending. After the House settlement’s approval in June, the system begins with a $20.5M revenue-sharing cap expected to rise annually. On paper, that creates clarity: limit excess spending, reduce runaway escalation, and improve competitive balance. However, Michigan coach Dusty May’s public skepticism goes straight to the core issue: “Is everyone going to be under this cap?” His point isn’t just about basketball—it’s about the broader economics of football, where the resource intensity is far greater. May argues that even if the headline number is capped, schools may still find ways to extend spending power through additional funding streams—effectively turning the cap into more of a flexible framework than a true ceiling. In other words, revenue-sharing may be changing the distribution of money, but not necessarily the incentives that drive departments to compete financially. What’s driving the concern: 1) Football’s spending gravity Football continues to command the largest share of resources, and that pressure can pull the entire budgeting ecosystem upward. 2) Multiple ways to fund the arms race Even with a cap, athletic departments can pursue strategies that increase total compensation and roster costs—through multimedia rights deals, apparel partnerships, and corporate sponsorships. 3) Evidence that top programs still invest heavily Reporting around Sweet 16 programs suggests top schools remain willing to spend to gain an advantage. Data cited via Opendorse indicated college men’s basketball received an average of $4.2M in revenue-share dollars in 2025-26—reinforcing that the new model is already producing significant investment levels. May’s bottom line is blunt: he “doesn’t know” whether the revenue-share number functions as a hard cap, soft cap, or neither—especially given what he’s hearing from agents and the realities of budgeting. This is the key disruption of the revenue-sharing era: the industry has moved to a new compensation model, but the systems designed to enforce the guardrails may not be mature enough to withstand the same escalation they were intended to contain. For athletic departments, the challenge isn’t only distributing revenue to athletes—it’s proving the model can actually hold under the same competitive pressures that built the current spending landscape. What do you think: will the cap become enforceable over time, or will the “spending beyond the headline” problem define the early years of college sports revenue-sharing?
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#NIL
Revenue-sharing was supposed to cap the chaos… but coaches are questioning if it’s enforceable. $20.5M “limit” or flexible framework? Football spending + creative funding streams may keep pushing the arms race. 👀🏈 #CollegeSports #RevenueSharing #NIL #Athletics #SportsBusiness #Football #Basketball #Compliance #On3 #NCAA
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#NIL
Revenue-sharing was designed to bring discipline to college athletics—but Michigan coach Dusty May says the biggest question is whether the cap can actually be enforced. With a $20.5M revenue-sharing limit (rising each year), May argues football spending and other budget streams may already be straining beyond the rules. The concern: the cap may not be a hard ceiling, but a flexible framework that still lets well-resourced programs widen the gap.
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#NIL
Revenue-sharing was supposed to fix college sports’ spending spiral… but is the cap even real? Michigan coach Dusty May is raising alarms, saying football’s budget pressure and other funding streams might let schools spend more than the headline $20.5M limit. So the question becomes: if departments can shift money through partnerships and media deals, what’s stopping an arms race? In 30 seconds: revenue-sharing may change who gets paid—but if enforcement can’t keep up with incentives, competitive imbalance could stay right where it is. Do you think the cap is enforceable—or just a starting point?
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#NIL
Revenue-sharing’s biggest flaw might be enforcement. After the House settlement, college sports has a $20.5M revenue-sharing cap—expected to rise each year. It was meant to create a real ceiling and restore balance. But Michigan coach Dusty May isn’t convinced. He questions whether schools will actually stay under the cap, especially with football spending that dwarfs other programs. His concern: even if the headline number is capped, athletic departments may use other funding streams—like media rights, sponsorships, and partnerships—to keep pushing total spending higher. So the real issue isn’t just sharing revenue—it’s whether the system can withstand the same escalation it was designed to stop. Is the cap a hard limit… or just a guideline? Comment your take.
#CollegeSports#RevenueSharing#NIL
