BIG MONEY: Reports Indicate Revenue Sharing Can Boost Georgetown, Big East in 2025-26

Yahoo and FOS articles detail how new rules will help basketball-focused institutions

The tectonic plates of college sports are shifting once again with the impending implementation of NCAA revenue sharing, a direct consequence of the House v. NCAA settlement. While much attention has been paid to the revenue demands of football within Power Five conferences, a closer examination reveals a potentially advantageous position for schools without the same level of football financial commitments. In a new report for Yahoo! Sports, Ross Dellenger shares that some Big East basketball programs, including your Georgetown Hoyas, can dedicate significantly higher percentage of their revenue sharing total than most Power 5 programs. Rather than relying on NIL groups and outside sponsorships, a Big East school could be directly spending $5+ million on their men’s basketball roster.

For institutions, this new landscape presents both opportunities and strategic challenges, particularly in how athletic departments allocate a newly permissible pool of funds to their student-athletes, e.g., expected to be a maximum of about $20.5 million.

If you’re school is into it, FBS football still generates too much money to not dedicate the majority of the revenue sharing cap to the team. For instance, Ohio State and Texas A&M both reported revenues nearing $280 million in 2023, so investing in football players over basketball players is a no-brainer.

But if certain budgets or percentages of revenue sharing are going to be allocated to individual sports, then institutions without big-time football will continue to focus on big-time basketball. It’s not secret that basketball has fewer student-athletes and is generally less expensive than football.

Last week, Big East commissioner Val Ackerman told Amanda Christovich of Front Office Sports that “As we look ahead to this revenue-sharing model, I think that can be, and maybe will be, an advantage for us because our schools can direct their dollars, whether it’s direct payments by the schools or monies from the third parties through collectives, or other third-party entities. We could go right to basketball.”

Simply put, while details about the revenue sharing settlement are still being sketched out, non-football schools will likely be able to directly pay basketball players more money than Power 5 schools. Perhaps this is why Richard Pitino came to Xavier and Kevin Willard is contemplating a move to Villanova.

How much revenue can they pay the players? Yahoo! Sports reports that “As many as a dozen non-power league Division I schools — many of them in the Big East — are planning to spend at least $5 million on their men’s basketball roster next year, with a smaller group hoping to reach the $6 million and $7 million marks.”

According to the article, UConn athletic director Dave Benedict believes that “at minimum” schools need $5 million for a men’s roster. An SEC athletic director told Yahoo! Sports that “Villanova and St. John’s can pour $10 million into basketball if they want. The SEC isn’t going to be able to do that because we cannot sacrifice the cash cow of football.”

Name, image, and licensing (NIL) funding will still be available to supplement the revenue sharing, but this will likely shift player payments away from NIL for the bulk of the student-athlete payments with most of the Big East programs.

Here are some thoughts about the intricacies of this new revenue-sharing model and explores why conferences like the Big East and strategically focused mid-major basketball programs may find themselves in a surprisingly strong position to compensate their basketball talent.

• What exactly is this new NCAA revenue-sharing plan? The House v. NCAA settlement, preliminarily approved on October 7, 2024, establishes a framework allowing NCAA member schools to share a portion of their revenue directly with athletes. This agreement, which resolves three major lawsuits, permits schools to distribute up to 22% of the average power conference athletic media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorship revenue to athletes, with an initial cap estimated at $20.5 million per institution for the 2025-26 fiscal year. This revenue-sharing is permissive, not mandatory.
• How does the settlement impact scholarship limits? The settlement eliminates scholarship limits across all sports. Instead, roster limits will be implemented for institutions in the Defendant Conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC) and those that opt-in from other conferences. Schools now have the discretion to offer partial or full scholarships as long as they stay within the roster limit. Importantly, the full cost-of-attendance dollar value of any new or incremental athletic scholarships, up to $2.5 million, will count against the revenue-sharing pool.
• When will the NCAA revenue sharing plan be implemented? The settlement is expected to receive final court approval on April 7, 2025, and the revenue sharing terms are set to go into effect for the 2025-26 academic year, potentially starting as early as July 1, 2025.
• Why is the lack of a major football program potentially advantageous for basketball funding under this new system? Schools in Power Five conferences often see football as their primary revenue generator. As a result, these institutions are widely expected to allocate a significant portion of their revenue-sharing pool to their football programs to remain competitive. For example, Texas Tech plans to commit “about 74%” of its revenue sharing to football players. This leaves a smaller percentage of the capped revenue-sharing pool available for other sports, including basketball.
• In contrast, institutions without major football programs, such as those predominantly in the Big East, or those with football programs in the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) or Group of Six conferences, do not face the same level of financial pressure to heavily invest in football. They have greater flexibility to dedicate a larger share of their revenue-sharing allotment to men’s and women’s basketball.
• What are some examples of how this might work financially for basketball-focused conferences like the Big East? Consider a Big East school that might have an annual athletic revenue of around $100 million. Under the settlement, they could potentially share up to $20.5 million. If they don’t have the significant football revenue demands of a Power Five school, they could theoretically allocate a much larger percentage of that $20.5 million to their basketball program. For instance, Houston’s athletic director Eddie Nunez suggested to Yahoo! Sports that Big East schools next year could pay $6 million or more to their basketball teams, which he termed a “game-changer.”
• Even if a Big East school opts to share only $10 million in total (e.g., half of the maximum), and allocates it based on revenue attribution (where men’s basketball might generate a significant portion), their men’s basketball players could hypothetically receive roughly $5 million and women’s basketball players $1.1 million. This level of investment in basketball could be significantly higher than what some Power Five schools, heavily weighted towards football spending, might be able to allocate to their basketball rosters from the same revenue-sharing pool.
• How could mid-major basketball programs also benefit? Similar to the Big East, mid-major programs without substantial football expenses can strategically prioritize basketball within their revenue-sharing plans. While their overall revenue and therefore their potential 22% cap might be smaller than that of Power Five schools, the proportion dedicated to basketball can be considerably larger. This could allow them to offer more competitive compensation packages to attract and retain talented basketball players, potentially even exceeding what some Power Five basketball players receive if their institution heavily favors football spending.
• Does this mean that all Big East and mid-major basketball players will automatically be paid more than Power Five basketball players? Not necessarily. Just because you’re allowed to spend $20 million each year, doesn’t mean you have $20 million to spend. The actual distribution will depend on various factors, including the specific revenue of each institution, the percentage they choose to share, and their individual strategic priorities.
• Power Five schools with exceptionally high athletic revenues will still have a larger overall pool to draw from, even if a significant portion goes to football. However, the new revenue-sharing model creates a scenario where basketball-centric conferences and programs can strategically leverage their lack of major football financial obligations to invest more heavily in basketball player compensation, potentially leading to a more level playing field in attracting basketball talent.
• Do Big East programs have the revenue? The Big East’s new TV media deal, which runs through 2031, is reportedly worth $480 million, averaging about $80 million per year. This is nearly double the value of their previous contract with FOX, which averaged $33.4 million per year. According to Paint Touches, the new deal positions the Big East as the third most valuable basketball property in Division I in terms of media rights value. This new contract is expected to be a substantial asset for the conference and its member programs going forward. Advertising, merchandising, sponsorships, tournament money, and donations will add to the available funds.
• Business Insider reported Georgetown’s average basketball revenue from 2016-2018 to be $13,134,412.
• Georgetown’s 2024 Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act Survey indicates that the men’s basketball expenses are $17.2MM and revenue as $16.4MM, with the grand total of all team revenues—including $13.3MM of revenue not attributable to a particular sport—is $58,357,795. Under the 22% cap rule, the limit for revenue sharing for Georgetown athletics would be about $12.8MM.
• How does Title IX factor into revenue sharing? The application of Title IX to revenue sharing—and who will enforce it—is currently uncertain following the rescission of Department of Education guidance. While Title IX requires equal opportunity for male and female athletes, including in financial assistance, it is unclear whether revenue sharing will be considered financial assistance subject to strict proportionality requirements. This issue will likely be a subject of ongoing debate and potential legal challenges.

• What is this new NIL clearinghouse? The Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse is a new enforcement entity expected to begin operating around July 1, tasked with overseeing third-party NIL deals for college athletes. Its primary purpose is to evaluate NIL agreements between athletes and boosters or affiliated entities to determine if they represent legitimate business transactions or are disguised “pay-for-play” arrangements. Deloitte will use data from past NIL deals to establish a “compensation range” for assessing the fair market value of proposed deals. Submitted deals deemed outside this range can be adjusted and resubmitted once, with further rejections leading to additional review and potential arbitration.
• Big East programs are likely hopeful that the clearinghouse will have “teeth” and prevent power leagues from circumventing revenue-sharing caps through inflated booster-backed NIL deals. Expect several future legal challenges.
• What are some of the broader implications of this shift? This potential financial realignment could lead to a strengthening of basketball programs in conferences like the Big East and successful mid-majors. They might become more attractive destinations for top recruits who are seeking greater financial benefits.
• Conversely, Power Five basketball programs in football-dominant institutions might need to find creative ways to supplement player compensation, potentially through Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals—or shady booster cash—to remain competitive. The success of the new NCAA oversight program for NIL enforcement and third-party payments will also play a crucial role in this evolving landscape.
• Ultimately, this new era of revenue sharing promises to reshape the financial dynamics of college basketball and could potentially empower basketball-focused institutions to become even more competitive on a national scale.