College athletics are now entering uncharted territory. On June 6th of this year, the House v. NCAA settlement was approved, officially allowing colleges to set aside up to $20.5 million to spend on athletes, in addition to any scholarships they already receive. This will essentially allow the athletics department of colleges to directly pay athletes, almost like they are employees. 

While one condition of the settlement allows schools to give out unlimited scholarships, it will also require roster limits on different sports, which in most cases, require schools to considerably cut down their numbers. Many are calling this the “new era” of college athletics, and the future is still very much unknown for the schools who have decided to opt out.

College athletics has been trending more and more towards commercialization over the past few decades. With the introduction of the House settlement, there is a fear that that shift is being accelerated, and in order to protect themselves from the financial burden of paying athletes, some schools may choose to cut non revenue teams. These teams will need to drastically and deliberately increase their fundraising in order to keep up with sports like football and basketball. 

Justin Ward, the Offensive Coordinator for the men’s lacrosse team at Loyola Maryland University says that he believes it could “become more difficult to grow the game of lacrosse at the Division I level”. If enough Division I teams are cut, it could be detrimental for the national growth of the sport.

At most NCAA Division I sports, football and men’s basketball are considered “revenue” sports, meaning they consistently generate profit for the university. On the other hand, sports like lacrosse, tennis, volleyball, cross country, track, and gymnastics are considered “non revenue” sports, meaning they rely on institutional support and donor funding to operate. Right now, there is a lot of uncertainty on how the House settlement will affect non revenue sports. 

While they do not directly generate as much profit for the school, Division I non revenue sports are essential for attracting top students, allowing athletes to enhance their level of play and competition for professional leagues, and even promoting gender equity through Title IX. They remain a crucial role in creating a competitive and fair environment in universities across the country. 

Loyola Maryland University did not opt into the settlement, “and will continue to assess the changing landscape”, according to The Baltimore Sun. Ironically, this could actually give the university a competitive edge, along with the other schools who decided to opt out. While the House settlement will persuade potential recruits to play for schools who opt in, it also means those schools have very limited rosters. In an interview with Coach Ward, he says that “the ACC and Big 10 teams have traditionally attracted the best recruits year after year”. However with these new roster limits, “these programs may only be able to recruit [something like] ten new players per class instead of twelve, leaving two more high quality players available”. 

Without roster limits, “the ability to build a bigger culture with great scout teams and depth will create a competitive advantage”, Justin Ward says. During the recruiting process, schools who did not opt in can shift their messaging to show the strength in numbers. 

As the 2025-2026 school season grows closer, the spotlight will be on the ACC, Big 10, and other schools with huge sports programs to see how the House settlement plays out. Will schools cut teams that do not bring in enough money? Or will they prove that more players translates to more long term success?

This article was written for the Yale Daily News’ 2025 Summer Journalism Program for high school students.