The North Carolina Tar Heels will take on Texas Christian University's Horned Frogs in Dublin, Ireland, Aug. 29. There are seven other games next week before all other teams join the fun Labor Day weekend.
College athletics is entering a new era in which schools can directly pay student athletes millions of dollars annually.
To remain competitive, state legislatures across the country are stepping in with public money, which means taxpayers are increasingly helping fund athletic facilities and athletic department debt, freeing up university budgets to compete in modern revenue-sharing and Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements.
College athlete revenue sharing and NIL agreements are distinct forms of compensation. Revenue sharing involves universities directly paying athletes, taking an estimated combined $20.5 million annually from athletic department funds; NIL refers to outside commercial earnings from third-party brands, endorsements, and booster groups.
In North Carolina, the state is earmarking millions of dollars in sports betting tax revenue for the University of North Carolina and NC State. Meanwhile, Wisconsin lawmakers have approved nearly $15 million for athletic costs.
Tom Joyce, editor-in-chief of the NewBostonPost, says shifting more of the financial burden onto taxpayers and students raises serious concerns.
"I think it's downright ridiculous," he submits.
Joyce said many college athletic programs are already operating at a loss, leaving taxpayers and students to absorb the costs. Instead of cutting some of the teams' expenses, schools with football teams that cost more money to run than they bring in are asking students to pay more in fees, and the government gives the school extra money from taxpayers.
"You already have 94% of the NCAA Division I athletic programs losing money," he notes. "What you end up with is the taxpayers footing the bill and the students footing the bill; you end up with students paying higher tuition, higher fees, and then more money from the taxpayers going into these institutions."
Supporters argue that strong athletic programs can boost state economies and university brands. Critics, however, say public subsidies fail to address the underlying problems driving athletic costs higher, including escalating coaching salaries, rising operational expenses, and conference realignment that can increase travel costs.
Joyce thinks lawmakers should focus less on subsidizing college athletics and more on making higher education itself more affordable; using public money or revenue from sources like gambling taxes does little to solve the underlying financial realities facing higher education.
"It'd be great if we could get back to the days where we could really just hone in and focus on athletic programs that really make money for their schools rather than take money from everyone else," he says.
With federal legislation such as the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act pending in the U.S. Senate — which would establish a uniform federal framework for collegiate athletics by codifying NIL rights, setting a national standard for transfers and a five-year eligibility window, creating a limited antitrust exemption for pooled media rights, and capping school revenue sharing — analysts warn that without meaningful spending restraints, public funds could simply finance the next stage of the college sports arms race.
