🏅Should the revenue-sharing cap be higher than $20.5 million?

A few days ago, NIL Wire became part of the Extra Points family, which means this weekly round-up of links and talking points has a new (temporary) author as we make the transition. I’m Joan Niesen, and I’m the assignment editor at Extra Points. In another lifetime — before NIL! — I wrote about college sports for Sports Illustrated, and I’m excited to be back in this wild, always-evolving world. 

In the coming weeks, you’ll continue to see more new bylines around here, writing about all things NIL. And soon, we’ll have a full-time writer ready to take over this newsletter in its entirety. 

That’s enough logistics for now — especially when there’s so much to talk about. Revenue-sharing began on Tuesday, which means college sports as we know it is officially over. In today’s newsletter, we’ll cover the early days of revenue sharing, the Title IX lawsuits that continue to plague the House settlement and more. Let’s jump in.

— Joan

The Big 3

The revenue-sharing cap is already coming under fire

Under the terms of the House settlement, schools can pay athletes up to $20.5 million for the 2025-26 academic year — but the plaintiffs’ attorneys want to know more about the data that led to that specific spending limit. Essentially, schools reported financial figures, which were used to set the cap, but the attorneys want to audit that data to see if calculations yielded an artificially low number. What could that mean? The cap might go up.

The attorneys are pointing to two justifications for the audit: opaque information in the “Other Operating Revenues” category and questions about revenue from luxury suites.

Legal proceedings like this take a long time, which means an adjustment might not hit during the upcoming school year. But the $20.5 million number has implications beyond 2025-26; it’s used to set the cap for Year 2 of revenue sharing (which will be 4 percent higher), and in Year 3 that number will grow by another 4 percent. So a higher cap could have far-reaching implications.

More Title IX lawsuits arrive in wake of House settlement

It took no time at all for female athletes to allege in lawsuits that the House settlement violated Title IX when it failed to mandate that women be paid a proportionate amount of back damages to men. The legal challenges continued this week, when six Stephen F. Austin bowlers and beach volleyball players — all women — filed a Title IX class action suit after their sports were cut. (SFA also cut men’s and women’s golf.)

In a press release announcing the cuts, the university wrote that they were a result of "sustained departmental budget deficits and the anticipated financial impact of upcoming revenue-sharing requirements with Division I athletes." The lawsuit alleges the cuts were part of a broader pattern of inequity.

A new transfer waiver

Roster limits were a huge sticking point in the House settlement — and a big reason why it was delayed until early June. Judge Claudia Wilken was insistent that roster limits be grandfathered in, meaning athletes whose spots were cut because of the settlement could continue to compete without counting against roster limits. Anyone in that position was placed on the “Designated Student-Athlete” list — and on Wednesday, the NCAA announced all DSAs will get a one-time waiver to enter the transfer portal.

That means that between July 7 and Aug. 5, DSAs can transfer without penalty, and they won’t count against roster limits at their new schools.

Extra Points delivers the insights that explain what’s really happening in college athletics.

Recent deep dives from reporter, Matt Brown, include:

• 🏀 Why college basketball video games are returning after a 12-year hiatus

• 🤔 How programs will navigate the new college sports salary cap

• 🏟️ Realignment moves from the Big Sky, WAC, ASUN and more

Four times weekly, you'll get the context and analysis that transforms confusing headlines into clear understanding. No fluff, no hot takes—just substantive reporting on the forces reshaping college sports.

NIL BLITZ

♦️ Every single Iowa State athlete will get a revenue-sharing payment.

♦️ There could be serious growing pains in the first year of revenue sharing.

♦️ What will a championship-caliber football roster cost at Alabama this year?

♦️ Texas launched an in-house NIL agency. So did Georgia.

♦️ Is collective bargaining the future of college sports? 

♦️ Take a look at the terms of several college sports GM contracts.

♦️ A bill in North Carolina will shield NIL contracts from public records requests.

♦️ Ohio State’s a Nike school. But Jeremiah Smith just signed a deal with Adidas.

♦️ Bryan Seeley is in charge of policing the wild new world of college sports.

Share NIL Wire

Have a friend or colleague who would enjoy NIL Wire? Share with them today!

You currently have 0 referrals.

BATTER UP

Today’s Poll Question:

Last Edition’s Poll Results:

What would you prioritize as an athletic director: not cutting non-revenue sports, or winning in the revenue-generators?

• Non-revenue sports are important; I’d try to keep them all intact - 47%

• The more revenue we make, the better position the athletics department is in. I’d go in on football and basketball - 53%