Football vs. Gold Medals
In our last post, we talked about the “One for the Few, One for the Many” model as a way to protect both high-revenue sports and Olympic/non-revenue programs. Another critical reason to think about this now? The future of the Olympics.
Since the House v. NCAA settlement took effect on July 1, at least 32 Division I Olympic sport programs have already been cut or combined. These sports are more than just campus traditions—they’re a key part of the U.S. Olympic pipeline. Without them, the path to the podium gets much narrower for future athletes. Right now, many schools see cutting non-revenue sports as the most “logical” way to balance their budgets. Football and basketball bring in the money, so they stay. Olympic sports, which often cost more than they earn, are the ones that get trimmed. But if we keep going down this road, we’ll not only lose opportunities for thousands of student-athletes—we could also watch our Olympic performance decline over the next decade.
The Sports Business Journal article linked below lays out the numbers, the stakes, and why some experts are calling for a fundamental shift in how we structure college athletics. If you care about the future of both college sports and Team USA, it’s worth the read.
