The looming House vs. NCAA settlement, a class-action lawsuit with potential ramifications for collegiate athletics, has ignited concerns among coaches of Olympic sports, particularly track and field. Sam Seemes, CEO of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA), has been a vocal advocate for these sports, arguing that the settlement, while potentially beneficial to some athletes, poses a significant threat to the future of non-revenue generating programs. Seemes and other coaching associations have lobbied Congress, highlighting the potential negative consequences of the settlement and urging a reassessment of its impact on Olympic sports. Their core argument centers on the financial strain the settlement could place on athletic departments, leading to scholarship reductions and even the elimination of entire sports programs.
The House vs. NCAA settlement, if approved, would distribute nearly $2.8 billion in retroactive payments to college athletes from 2016 to the advent of the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) era in 2021. While a significant portion of these funds would go to men’s and women’s basketball and football players, a smaller percentage would be allocated to other sports, including track and field. Beyond the retroactive payments, the settlement would also establish a revenue-sharing system for current athletes in participating Division I programs. While this might seem advantageous for athletes, Seemes argues that the added financial burden on athletic departments could have devastating consequences for Olympic sports. He fears that schools will be forced to make difficult decisions, potentially cutting scholarships and even eliminating entire programs to offset the increased costs associated with the revenue-sharing model.
A key concern revolves around the potential impact on scholarship limits and Title IX compliance. While the settlement proposes increasing scholarship limits for some sports, including track and field, Seemes believes these ideal scenarios are unlikely to materialize. He argues that many programs will be hesitant to increase scholarships, particularly men’s programs, due to the Title IX requirement of maintaining gender equity in athletic opportunities. This means that for every new men’s scholarship offered, a corresponding women’s scholarship would likely need to be added, further exacerbating the financial strain on athletic departments. Additionally, each new scholarship accepted would reduce the amount of revenue available for sharing, creating a complex financial balancing act for universities.
The potential financial burdens imposed by the settlement are compounded by the existing challenges faced by track and field programs. Seemes points to the precedent set during the COVID-19 pandemic when several universities cut track and field programs due to financial constraints. He fears that the House vs. NCAA settlement could trigger similar cutbacks, jeopardizing the future of the sport. Seemes argues that athletic departments, under financial pressure, often make hasty and detrimental decisions, and he urges a more proactive and strategic approach to navigating the potential challenges presented by the settlement. He emphasizes the need for track and field programs to enhance their value and visibility to secure their future in the evolving landscape of collegiate athletics.
To combat these potential threats, Seemes advocates for a paradigm shift in how track and field is presented and marketed. He believes the sport must adapt to the modern era by embracing innovative strategies to engage audiences and generate revenue. This includes optimizing meet schedules, securing better television partnerships, and creating compelling matchups featuring star athletes to attract larger audiences. Seemes also encourages college programs to host more meets on their own campuses, providing greater control over the presentation and revenue generation potential of these events. He stresses the importance of making track and field a more accessible and enjoyable experience for casual fans, crucial for increasing the sport’s popularity and financial viability.
Seemes’s message is clear: track and field programs must proactively adapt and innovate to survive in the changing collegiate athletics landscape. He urges coaches and administrators to focus on creating value, enhancing visibility, and generating revenue to secure the future of the sport. He warns that failing to do so will leave track and field vulnerable to budget cuts and program eliminations, potentially diminishing opportunities for student-athletes and jeopardizing the sport’s long-term viability. He stresses the urgency of the situation, emphasizing that these threats are not distant possibilities but immediate concerns that demand immediate action. He calls on the track and field community to embrace change and actively work to secure the sport’s future.
