After months of debate and litigation, a federal judge finally granted approval to a settlement that is set to change the landscape of college sports as we have known them. This new ruling will allow schools to directly pay their athletes for the use of their name, image, and likeness, subject to an annual cap based on a percentage of a defined set of Power Five Athletics department revenues. These payments can begin as early as July 1. The annual cap for revenue sharing for the upcoming 2025-26 athletic season is estimated to be $20.5 million.

Earlier this week, we outlined how this will affect Liberty at a high level. So, be sure to go back and read that article before continuing here. Now, we will answer the questions we have received over the past several days relating to this settlement as we further break down how it will affect college athletics as a whole, but more specifically, how it will have immediate impacts on Liberty.

By virtue of this ruling, schools aren’t receiving money to pay athletes. Schools that opt in to the settlement to share revenue, will have to budget for those additional costs out of their own resources. As for how it will impact Liberty and others at a mid-major level, that could be answered in many ways. While Liberty will opt in, there will be others at the mid-major level that won’t share revenue. Others still that will share revenue but it will be at a substantially less level than a school like Liberty will be able to. Even for Liberty and other top G5 programs, the chasm between them and the top of the FBS will only grow. How big of an impact will that have on results on the field and court? We will have to wait and see.

There’s also something else to consider when it comes to mid-majors and revenue sharing. There are numerous schools that compete in this space that don’t have football teams. Think of much of the Big East and A-10. Those schools will, in theory, be able to share a higher amount of their revenue with men’s basketball than even the top of the P4. What type of impact will that have on college basketball? And at a smaller level, there are other mid majors, think of a High Point or Grand Canyon, that don’t have football. While those schools’ overall revenue sharing bucket is likely going to be significantly less than Liberty’s, those schools don’t have split that up with a football roster of approximately 100 athletes. So, their revenue sharing bucket for men’s basketball will likely be larger than that of the Flames.

We’ve gotten this question in varying degrees over the past few days. Revenue sharing, or internal NIL as some refer to it, is not in place of the existing NIL we have gotten to know in recent years. Instead, it is in addition to it. However, any Division I athlete who has an NIL deal(s) worth $600 or more will have to report those deals to a system called NIL Go. The data will then be evaluated to determine whether the deal has a valid business purpose and is within a reasonable range of compensation. At the surface level, it appears there will be more accountability for many of these NIL payments than we currently have. It remains to be seen how this will impact NIL Collectives, such as Flames Rising.

This is a good question, but I’m not sure we have all the data yet to answer it completely. I’d also argue that “little added value” in recent years is incorrect. Liberty is one of, if not the fastest growing athletic departments in the country. Do we know that costs are going to increase at Liberty directly because of revenue sharing? I don’t think we can say that yet. If they do increase, will those additional costs lead to a better product and/or better results? Again, I don’t think we can answer that yet.

I could see a scenario where this new ruling leads Liberty to the AAC because some of the schools in that league may not be able to keep up with the top of the conference, opening a door for a school like Liberty than can keep up. I don’t think we should just assume that costs are going to rise and we won’t see increased value. If recent history is any indicator, we should continue to see Liberty’s brand and athletic department continue to rise.


More money is always a good thing. I’m not sure if it should be the NIL Collective’s duty to raise the money to offset the athletic department costs. Seems to me that would fall on the fundraising arm of the University/Athletic Department.

Something obviously needs to change with the transfer portal and postseason opt outs. This settlement doesn’t directly address that. Hopefully it will lead to more stabilization for all of college athletics. We’re moving closer and closer to a professional sports model. It should only be a matter of time before there are contracts for the paid athletes.

Yes, my understanding is that all CUSA schools are opting in to this settlement. There has not been a minimum or maximum (except for the cap amount which we don’t have to worry about in CUSA) amount set yet for Conference USA, but I see us heading there. The AAC is reportedly requiring each member to provide athletes with at least $10 million in cumulative additional benefits over a three-year period.

Like coaches’ salaries and game contracts, I don’t think we will see a number publicly reported as to how much Liberty is sharing with its athletes any time soon, but sources do indicate that the Flames will compete near the top of the G5. So, keep an eye out for publicly reported numbers from the other top G5 schools and bet that Liberty is close to that number.

This wasn’t a question asked directly about the House Settlement, but I do think it is a result of it. I don’t know for a fact this is why Duke is coming to Liberty Arena to play the Lady Flames for two straight years, but I have heard rumors of schools even at the P4 level reducing scheduling budgets to help increase revenue sharing budgets. We could see this affect all the sports outside of football and men’s basketball. This could be beneficial to those sports at Liberty with having so many ACC schools pretty much in our backyard.