🏅College tennis faces an uphill battle

Hey everyone,

Today, we’re diving into the world of college tennis, with a guest post from Pete Janny, a freelance writer and former Division I sports information director. Tennis has faced some strange rules quirks in the NIL era, and it remains to be seen how it’ll adjust to revenue sharing.

Read on to learn more.

— Joan

QUICK HIT

The SCORE Act continues churning through Congress

It was a quiet weekend in college sports news, so if you’re looking for some reading material to scratch that itch, we recommend this CBS Sports column from John Talty that raises an interesting question: Are media days an outdated institution? Have they become, as one source told Talty, a “snoozefest”?

Wimbledon just captivated the sports world for two weeks, reminding us why it’s one of the premier events on the calendar. Meanwhile, college tennis finds itself in a much different situation: trying to adapt to the new realities of revenue sharing alongside NIL. In anticipation of the House settlement’s revenue-sharing cap of $20.5 million per school for the 2025-26 academic year, Division I college tennis programs recently shared feedback to help navigate the latest round of challenges confronting non-revenue sports.

In an anonymous Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) survey of men’s and women’s programs conducted in May, only 18 percent of respondents said their schools plan to compensate tennis players. Meanwhile, 49 percent of respondents said they’d been told their schools won’t issue revenue payments to tennis players. 

It’s a safe bet to imagine that the bulk of the 18 percent comes from the Power 4 ranks. 

“I have a lot of concerns about the rich getting richer and the mid-majors getting further left behind,” said David Mullins, CEO of the ITA, which is based at Arizona State University and serves as the governing body for collegiate tennis. Mullins also wonders how college tennis will respond to the market pressures favoring revenue sports. 

Revenue sharing has arrived — but where will tennis fit in? At a time when American professional players are sitting pretty on the world stage — four American men rank in the top 15 in the ATP rankings, and five crack the top 15 on the women’s side — the college game must learn to adapt to remain a strong feeder system to the pros. It has already faced challenges since NIL was first permitted four years ago, and now industry leaders wonder what the future will hold.

“I don’t think I’ve come across anyone who is enamored with the way things are going across the industry,” said Mullins, who’s involved in the conversations with the NCAA to help increase the visibility of tennis and other individual sports. “There’s more fear and pessimism than any optimism.” 

Additionally, the implications of revenue sharing are multi-faceted, extending beyond just the individual payouts. 

Schools that opted into the House settlement are reconsidering scholarship allotments, and among those surveyed by the ITA, 42 percent reported that their allotment will either change or is still being worked out. 

Another challenge facing the college tennis landscape: The programs that have recently shut down, like the University of Louisiana Monroe women’s team, are citing operating expenses. In addition to UL Monroe, Central Arkansas also scrapped its women’s program in June, and Eastern Illinois went a step further, cutting both men’s and women’s tennis in May. Richard Kent, a sports lawyer and NIL professor, points to how the timing of the cuts aren’t doing anyone favors.

“I don’t think it’s a good look if it happens three months, six months or even a year after revenue share,” he said. “Just so that people don’t accuse revenue share for it.”

Kent and Mullins both agree that more cuts should be expected. Or, as Mullins phrased it: They’re “inevitable.”

Kent also forecasts an avalanche of Title IX cases related to revenue sharing. Legally speaking,  compensating student-athletes based on the gender distribution of the school would be the safe approach; however, such a philosophy would potentially equate tennis, a non-revenue sport, with football and men’s basketball, which drive the most revenue by far. 

“I do not think that Title IX applies because the predicate for revenue share is actual revenue, and the main revenue drivers are football and men's basketball,” said Kent. 

Kent also cited the foreign influence on college tennis, and he believes the financial stressors in 2025, like revenue sharing, may lead to an even larger proportion of international players on rosters. According to an NCAA report released in 2022, 61 percent of men’s tennis players and 66 percent of the women are from outside the United States, marking a large increase from the 38 percent and 50 percent, respectively, reported in 2006-07. The 2025 national championship-winning Wake Forest men and Georgia women both follow this trend; 63 percent of the Wake Forest men are internationals, along with 58 percent of the Georgia women. 

“I think that it will facilitate more foreign players filling the roster of the Power 4 tennis programs,” Kent said of the fallout of revenue sharing and program cuts. 

College tennis is also facing a unique legal challenge. UNC’s Reese Brantmeier sued the NCAA in 2024, challenging the rules that restrict players from accepting prize money while maintaining eligibility. Additionally, Brantmeier filed paperwork in February to cover all college tennis players competing since March 2020, making her suit a class action. As NIL and revenue-sharing have completely redefined college sports, tennis, in some ways, has become anachronistic.

“I would expect that to be changed sooner rather than later,” Mullins said of the rules Brantmeier’s case is challenging. “These tennis players are earning this prize money and have a huge number of expenses associated with getting to events and paying for coaching.” 

The U.S. Tennis Association figures to be paying close attention to the direction of the college game. Two American women — neither of whom played the college game — have captured Grand Slams this year, and Ben Shelton, a University of Florida product who’s ranked No. 9 in the world, made it to the quarterfinals at Wimbledon. Despite the significant challenges ahead, Mullins still thinks the college game is a feasible route for future professionals, as evidenced by Shelton’s success. 

“In the ’60s, ’70s, and even ’80s, a lot of players, especially the American players, were using the college system to transition into pro tennis, and that philosophy changed in the ’90s and 2000s,” Mullins said. “But attitudes are starting to shift again, and people are realizing that the college level is a place to develop your skills to play professionally.”

Either way, college tennis will need to learn how to co-exist with the revenue-sharing model, with revenue sports receiving more attention and better funding.

Pete Janny is a college sports writer and former D-I SID. He has contributed to two editions of “The Madness of Ivy Basketball,” and he can be found on X and LinkedIn, where he expresses his passion for sports.