Abstract
Paper Three analyzed the cross-subsidy compact from the side of those who pay it and reserved for separate treatment the position of those who receive it. This paper turns the compact over. It argues that the recipients of the transfer are not a single class but two, layered one inside the other: the modest institutions whose status as national participants the compact sustains, and the non-revenue sports and roster places within every school, including the wealthiest, that the surplus from football and men’s basketball historically carried. The withdrawal of cross-subsidy, set in motion by the revenue-share cap and the roster limits that accompany it, collapses both layers at once, because the same surplus that flowed outward to weak institutions also flowed downward to non-revenue programs, and the cap redirects that surplus toward direct payment of the revenue athletes who generate it. The recipients therefore face not impoverishment but the removal of the carry that made them viable as participants in the enterprise. The paper develops the economics of the carried sport, traces the cascade by which the cap severs both layers of subsidy simultaneously, identifies sex-equity law as the binding constraint that governs where the cuts fall, examines the sport-sponsorship floor as the compact’s last residual transfer and the recipients’ attempt to legislate it, and argues that the deepest loss is categorical: the breakaway would not make the have-nots poorer so much as dissolve the very status the compact created for them.
1. Turning the compact over
The preceding paper described a transfer obligation as its payers experience it, and closed by insisting that the recipients’ position could not be inferred from the payers’ grievance, because the two sides face questions different in kind. For the payers, the compact is a premium whose worth has fallen, and the question is whether to keep paying. For the recipients, the compact is the structure within which they exist as participants in the national enterprise at all, and the question is whether they survive its withdrawal. This paper takes up the recipients’ question, and it begins by insisting on the asymmetry of stakes that makes the question worth asking on its own terms.
The asymmetry is not rhetorical. A transfer that the payers experience as a modest and resented tax may be, to the recipients, the margin between a viable program and none. The wealthy conferences, were they to cease paying the compact entirely, would lose a sum small beside the media revenue they retain; the analysis of Paper Three showed that their resentment tracks the perceived absence of return rather than the magnitude of the payment. The recipients stand in the opposite relation to the same dollars. What is marginal to the payer can be existential to the recipient, and an analysis that measured the compact only by what it costs the strong would miss almost everything about what it does for the weak. The structural fact of the matter is that the compact’s importance is distributed inversely to the resources of the parties it touches: least important to those who pay the most, most important to those who pay the least or nothing at all.
But the recipients’ question, once posed, immediately complicates the category of “recipient” itself. The payers’ grievance treated the cross-subsidy as a flow between institutions — from the revenue-driving programs to the modest ones. That flow is real, but it is not the only flow, and it is not even the one that the current restructuring is severing most visibly. There is a second transfer, internal to each institution, that the payer-side analysis had no occasion to notice: the flow from the revenue sports within a school to the non-revenue sports within the same school. This internal transfer is also cross-subsidy, and its recipients — the swimmers and runners and rowers, the walk-ons and partial-scholarship athletes — are also have-nots, though they belong to the very institutions that count as haves at the inter-institutional level. To turn the compact over is to discover that recipiency has two layers, and that the breakaway dynamics are collapsing both at once.
2. The argument in brief
The paper advances four claims. First, the cross-subsidy compact operated at two layers — between institutions, sustaining modest programs as national participants, and within institutions, sustaining non-revenue sports out of the surplus generated by football and men’s basketball — and the recipients of the compact exist at both. Second, the non-revenue sport never paid for itself and was never expected to; it was a carried activity, financed by a surplus whose redirection toward direct athlete payment is precisely what the revenue-share cap accomplishes, so that the cap severs the internal transfer as a matter of arithmetic rather than malice. Third, sex-equity law is the binding constraint on how the resulting contraction is distributed, generating a genuine three-way bind among the cap allocation the market would dictate, the proportionality the law requires, and the program inventory the recipients depend upon. Fourth, the deepest loss to the recipients is categorical rather than financial: the compact did not merely fund the have-nots, it conferred upon them the status of participants in a national enterprise, and its dissolution would return them to being merely local programs — a loss the breakaway’s pure-market logic cannot price because the value destroyed was never a market value.
These claims complete the volume’s middle movement. With both sides of the compact now mapped — the payers’ refusal in Paper Three, the recipients’ survival problem here — the volume can turn to the three pressure dimensions that the compact’s strain expresses itself through, beginning in Paper Five with the attempt to reconstitute governance outside the body that historically performed it.
3. The two layers of recipiency
The structural heart of this paper is the recognition that cross-subsidy in college sports has always run in two directions at once, and that conflating them obscures who bears the cost of the present restructuring.
The first layer is inter-institutional, and it was the layer Paper Three’s payers had in view. Through the tournament-distribution pool and the pooling of programs in common competition, resources and legitimacy flow from the revenue-driving institutions toward the modest ones. The recipients at this layer are whole institutions — the mid-majors and small programs whose participation in the national enterprise the compact underwrites.
The second layer is intra-institutional, and it was invisible from the payer side because it never appeared as a transfer between the parties Paper Three was weighing. Within a single athletic department, the surplus generated by football and men’s basketball has historically financed the entire rest of the program — the dozens of non-revenue sports that generate no broadcast value, draw no national audience, and could not survive on their own receipts. Every swimming team, every cross-country squad, every rowing program at a major university was a carried activity, sustained by the overflow from the two sports that paid the bills. The recipients at this layer are not institutions but sports, and the athletes within them.
The decisive observation is that both layers were fed from the same source. The surplus that a wealthy program might have shared outward with weak institutions and the surplus it spent inward on its own non-revenue sports were the same surplus, drawn from the same revenue sports. So long as that surplus was large and uncommitted, it could feed both layers without strain. The compact, at both layers, ran on the slack between what football and basketball generated and what those sports cost to run. The recipients at both layers were, in the end, claimants on a single pool of carried-over revenue.
This is why the revenue-share cap is so consequential, and why its consequences fall where they do. The cap does not directly tax the weak institutions, and it does not directly abolish the non-revenue sports. It does something more fundamental: it commits the surplus. By permitting — and competitively compelling — schools to pay the revenue athletes directly, up to a per-school ceiling near twenty million dollars, the cap claims the slack that formerly fed both layers of subsidy and routes it to the athletes who generate it.¹ The surplus that carried the swimmers and underwrote the mid-majors is now owed to the football and basketball players themselves. The pool that fed recipiency at both layers has been redirected to its source, and the recipients at both layers are left looking for a flow that has been turned off at the tap.
4. The economics of the carried sport
To grasp the recipient side fully, one must abandon the assumption, natural to a market framing, that an activity ought to pay for itself. The non-revenue sport never did and never claimed to. Its economics are the economics of a carried activity, and the relevant question about it has never been whether it covers its costs but who absorbs the gap between its costs and its receipts.
In the compact, the answer was the surplus. A university fielded a swimming team or a track program not because the team generated revenue but because the institution valued the activity — for the athletes it served, for the breadth of program it signaled, for the development pipeline it sustained, for reasons that were never commercial. The gap between what the sport cost and what it brought in was filled, quietly and without remark, by the overflow from football and basketball. This arrangement was so stable for so long that it came to seem natural, an assumed feature of what a major athletic department was, rather than what it actually was: a deliberate internal cross-subsidy, sustained only by the continued existence of uncommitted surplus.
The arrangement’s stability depended entirely on the surplus remaining uncommitted, and this is the condition the cap removes. Once the revenue athletes acquire a direct claim on the surplus — a claim that competitive pressure makes nearly mandatory for any program that wishes to keep its football and basketball players — the surplus is no longer available to fill the non-revenue sports’ gap. The gap does not close; the sports still cost what they cost. What changes is that nothing fills it. And a carried activity that loses its carrier does not become self-sustaining; it becomes a candidate for elimination.
The evidence is already abundant and was predicted by the schools themselves, who for years warned that paying players would come at the expense of the non-revenue programs and have now, in some cases, made good on the warning. Some programs have cited the settlement directly as justification for cutting Olympic sports, while others have folded the cuts into vaguer budget decisions. The mechanism is not malice but arithmetic: a surplus that must now flow to the revenue athletes cannot also flow to the carried sports, and the carried sports are where the contraction shows. Estimates placed the loss across Division I in the range of four to five thousand roster spots, with the power-conference schools alone expected to eliminate at least three thousand positions as a combined result of the roster limits, the redistribution of revenue toward direct payment, and the requirements of sex-equity balance. The carried sport, having lost its carrier, is being set down.
5. The cascade
The two layers of recipiency and the economics of the carried sport together produce a cascade, and naming the cascade is the paper’s central structural contribution. The haves’ refusal of the inter-institutional transfer, analyzed in Paper Three as a refusal to keep carrying weak institutions, is not a discrete act confined to that layer. It is one expression of a single underlying movement — the commitment of the surplus to direct athlete payment — and that same movement simultaneously severs the intra-institutional transfer to the haves’ own non-revenue sports. The refusal cascades downward through both layers because both layers drew on the one pool.
This is why the parties bearing the most visible cost of the present restructuring are not, in the first instance, the mid-major institutions that Paper Three’s payers wished to stop carrying. They are the non-revenue athletes within the wealthy institutions themselves — the very schools that count as haves. The roster limits that accompany the revenue-share model translate the surplus’s redirection into hard caps on the number of athletes each sport may carry, and the caps fall hardest on the carried sports. Where a non-revenue team such as swimming or cross country might formerly have carried a full roster well over a hundred across walk-ons and partial-scholarship athletes, the new limits can cut that figure by half or more. The concrete cases are stark: at one Southeastern Conference program, a swimming roster of forty-two faced reduction to a conference limit near twenty-two, with the cut threatening to convert a family’s expected grant-in-aid into tens of thousands of dollars in unplanned tuition; at another, a cross-country coach was directed to cut his roster from twenty-six runners progressively down to ten, in a sport where seven are needed merely to score.
The cascade explains a feature of the restructuring that the inter-institutional framing alone cannot. One might expect the wealthy programs, flush with media revenue, to be insulated from the contraction and the modest programs to bear it. The opposite is happening at the level of the carried sport, because the cap binds precisely the wealthy programs that opt into revenue sharing, and it is their commitment of surplus to direct payment that severs their own internal subsidy. The mid-major that does not opt fully into the cap, or cannot afford to, may paradoxically preserve more of its non-revenue inventory in the short run, while the powerhouse that pays its football players the most is the one cutting its swimmers. The cascade redistributes the visible cost in a way that the simple haves-and-have-nots picture would not predict, and the redistribution follows the commitment of surplus rather than the wealth of the institution.
A transitional device softens but does not reverse the cascade. Athletes identified as designated student-athletes — those who held or were promised roster spots before the limits took effect — may be retained above the limits and do not count against the cap, an exemption that follows them through their careers and across transfers. This grandfathering spreads the contraction over time rather than imposing it all at once, but it changes the schedule of the loss, not its direction. The carried sports remain candidates for reduction as the grandfathered cohort ages out, and the structural fact — that the surplus which carried them has been committed elsewhere — is unaltered by the timing.
6. Sex-equity law as the binding constraint
If the cap determines that the contraction will happen, sex-equity law determines how it is distributed, and it does so by imposing a constraint that the market logic of the cap cannot satisfy on its own. The result is a genuine three-way bind, and the bind is structural rather than a matter of any administrator’s preference.
The first horn is the allocation the market would dictate. Left to revenue logic alone, a program would direct the great bulk of its capped payment to the athletes who generate the revenue — the football and men’s basketball players — because that is where the value is produced and where competitive pressure to retain talent is fiercest. Most programs indeed plan to direct the dominant share of the cap to those two sports.
The second horn is the proportionality the law requires. Sex-equity law conditions a school’s federal standing on providing athletic opportunity and resources in a manner balanced between men and women, and a cap allocated overwhelmingly toward two men’s sports sits in obvious tension with that requirement. A program that pays its capped dollars almost entirely to male revenue athletes invites a sex-discrimination challenge; a program that splits the cap evenly to avoid that challenge pays its female athletes sums that bear no relation to revenue production, inviting the counter-argument that it has overpaid relative to any market measure and exposing it on a different front. The contraction itself must be executed in a manner that balances opportunities between men and women, which means the roster cuts cannot fall wherever revenue logic alone would send them but must be distributed to preserve proportionality.
The third horn is the program inventory the recipients depend upon. The non-revenue sports are themselves the substance of the opportunity that sex-equity law measures, and many of them — particularly the women’s non-revenue sports — are the very programs that allow a school to maintain proportionality in the first place. Cutting them to fund the cap therefore collides with the law twice over: directly, by removing balanced opportunity, and indirectly, by removing the inventory that offset the male-heavy revenue sports. A program caught among these three horns cannot satisfy all of them at once. It can pay the revenue athletes what the market dictates, comply with proportionality, or preserve its non-revenue inventory, but the cap’s arithmetic forbids doing all three, and the recipients of the carried sport are the parties on whom the failure to reconcile the three most often falls.
The bind has produced litigation pressing in opposite directions, which is the surest sign that the three horns cannot be jointly satisfied. Walk-on and non-scholarship athletes have challenged the roster-limit rule itself as inadequate to protect those who lost their places, arguing that proposed remedies do not go far enough. Such challenges, layered atop the sex-equity exposure that any allocation invites, mean that however a program resolves the bind it remains open to attack from some quarter. The recipient of the carried sport is thus not merely losing a roster place; the recipient sits at the point where three irreconcilable legal and economic demands intersect, and is squeezed by their irreconcilability.
7. The floor that remains
One element of the compact still binds and prevents the contraction from running to its limit, and the recipients have noticed that it is the one remaining piece of the structure that protects them. The Association maintains sport-sponsorship minimums — a floor on the number of sports a school must field to retain its classification. A school competing at the top football tier must sponsor at least sixteen sports, a requirement that sets a hard floor beneath the contraction even as many power programs field well above the minimum and so retain substantial room to cut before reaching it.
The sponsorship floor is a remnant of the pooling mechanism that Paper Three identified as the buffer-buying portion of the compact. It is the residue of the principle that membership in the national enterprise carries obligations of breadth — that to be a participant is to field a range of sports, not merely the two that pay. So long as the floor holds, a school cannot reduce itself to a football-and-basketball operation; it must carry some inventory of non-revenue sports as a condition of its standing. The floor is, in effect, the compact’s last enforced transfer, the one piece of carried activity that the structure still compels even as the surplus that voluntarily financed the rest is withdrawn.
The recipients’ response to this fact is the clearest evidence of the floor’s importance to them. The coaching associations of the non-revenue sports have organized to lobby Congress, retaining professional representation and calling for federal intervention to protect the existing sport-sponsorship requirements and to mandate meaningful allocation of resources to programs outside football and basketball. This is a telling structural move. The recipients, sensing that the informal carry that sustained them is gone, are attempting to convert the compact’s residual floor into a statutory one — to have the law compel the breadth that the surplus used to finance voluntarily. They are seeking to legislate the carry, because they understand that the voluntary version has ended and that only a legal floor will keep their sports in existence. Whether such a floor can survive the same legislative paralysis that has blocked the antitrust accommodation the conferences seek is a question for Paper Six; the structural point here is that the recipients have correctly identified the floor as the one part of the compact still working on their behalf, and have moved to fortify it.
8. What a have-not is once the compact dissolves
The deepest loss to the recipients is not financial, and the financial framing obscures it. The compact did more than fund the have-nots; it constituted them. The same pooling mechanism that bought the haves their legal buffer, by sustaining the breadth that made shared restraints defensible, conferred on the modest program its standing as a participant in a national enterprise. The mid-major was a national participant because the compact pooled it with the powers in common competition and common championships; the non-revenue sport was a recognized part of college athletics because the structure carried it as one. Status, here, was a creature of the compact, not a fact that existed independently of it.
This is why the recipients’ loss cannot be measured in transferred dollars. A modest program stripped of the compact does not simply become a poorer version of what it was; it becomes a different kind of thing — a regional or local athletic operation rather than a participant in a national structure. The breakaway, completed, would not make the have-nots poorer so much as dissolve the category that made them have-nots in the first place, because to be a have-not in this enterprise was to be a lesser participant in a shared structure, and the dissolution of the structure abolishes the participation along with the lesser standing. One cannot be a have-not in a compact that no longer exists; one is simply outside, which is a different condition entirely.
The point extends to the carried sports and reveals what the market logic of the cap cannot price. The value of a non-revenue college sport was never commercial; it was developmental and participatory. The college system has functioned as the de facto national pipeline for the development of athletes in sports that have no professional market to sustain them, and the participatory value of fielding broad programs — the opportunities extended to thousands of athletes who would never turn professional — was a value the enterprise produced without ever selling. A restructuring organized entirely around the direct payment of revenue athletes has no place in its arithmetic for value that was never a market value, and so it treats the carried sports as costs to be shed rather than as goods being destroyed. The recipients lose not a subsidy but a kind of value the new structure is constitutionally unable to recognize, because the new structure prices only what the market prices, and the carried sport’s worth was always of another kind.
This categorical loss is the recipient-side complement to the payers’ refusal. Paper Three showed the haves ceasing to pay a transfer whose return they no longer perceived; this paper shows that the transfer they are ceasing to pay was, for its recipients, the very thing that made them what they were. The two halves of the compact meet here. What the payers experience as the discontinuation of a tax that bought them nothing, the recipients experience as the dissolution of the status that constituted their existence in the enterprise. The same mechanism, read from the two sides, is a modest saving to those who paid and an existential loss to those who received — which is the asymmetry of stakes with which this paper began, now stated in its fullest form.
9. Conclusion
The cross-subsidy compact operated at two layers, between institutions and within them, and both drew on a single pool of surplus generated by football and men’s basketball. The revenue-share cap commits that surplus to the direct payment of the revenue athletes who generate it, and in doing so severs both layers of subsidy at once: the haves cease carrying the weak institutions, and the same movement strips the haves’ own non-revenue sports of the overflow that sustained them. The recipients of the compact at both layers therefore face not impoverishment but the withdrawal of the carry that made them viable, with the most visible cost falling, against naive expectation, on the carried sports within the wealthiest programs. Sex-equity law governs the distribution of the resulting contraction through a three-way bind that cannot be jointly satisfied, the sport-sponsorship floor remains the compact’s last enforced transfer and the object of the recipients’ attempt to legislate the carry, and the deepest loss is categorical: the compact constituted the have-nots as national participants, and its dissolution would return them to being merely local operations while destroying a developmental and participatory value the new structure cannot price.
With both sides of the compact now in view, the volume turns from the distribution of the enterprise’s resources to the governance of its restraints. The strain that the compact’s two sides express — the payers refusing, the recipients squeezed — has driven the haves to attempt what Paper One showed they are poorly equipped to do: to reconstitute outside the Association the enforcement function the Association historically performed. Paper Five takes up that attempt directly, examining why private governance, severed from the accumulated legitimacy and the statutory backing that alone could make its restraints stick, has produced the difficulties it has, and what its early failure reveals about the limits of governing a national enterprise from a body that holds neither the buffer nor the law behind it.
Notes
- The revenue-share cap is treated throughout this volume as a trajectory rather than a fixed figure; the first-year ceiling near twenty million dollars per school rises on a roughly four-percent annual schedule across the settlement term. The structural claim of this paper concerns the cap’s effect of committing previously uncommitted surplus, which holds at any point along the trajectory.
- The distinction between inter-institutional and intra-institutional cross-subsidy is this volume’s analytical framing, continuous with the two-layer reading of the compact developed here. The industry discourse tends to treat the cutting of non-revenue sports and the plight of mid-majors as separate stories; the structural claim is that they are two faces of a single redirection of surplus.
- “Carried activity” is used in its plain sense — an activity sustained by a surplus drawn from elsewhere rather than by its own receipts — and is not a term of art. The economics are those of internal cross-subsidy within a multi-product enterprise, treated in the sports-economics literature cited in Paper Three and extended here to the intra-institutional case.
- The designated-student-athlete exemption is a transitional grandfathering provision. Its effect is to spread the roster contraction over a multi-year horizon as the protected cohort ages out, not to prevent the contraction; the structural direction is set by the commitment of surplus, which the exemption does not reverse.
- The sex-equity three-way bind described in Section 6 is developed further, in its legal-exposure dimension, in Paper Six. The present treatment concerns its effect on the recipients of the carried sport; the antitrust and statutory dimensions belong to the later paper.
- The characterization of the college system as the de facto national development pipeline for non-professional sports is widely asserted by the affected coaching associations and is offered here as a structural observation about where such development has historically occurred, not as a quantified claim about pipeline yield.
References
A new era: What the NCAA settlement means for current and future student-athletes. (2025, June 13). SportsRecruits. https://blog.sportsrecruits.com/2025/06/12/a-new-era-what-the-ncaa-settlement-means-for-current-and-future-student-athletes/
Fort, R., & Quirk, J. (1995). Cross-subsidization, incentives, and outcomes in professional team sports leagues. Journal of Economic Literature, 33(3), 1265–1299.
House settlement finalized to push college athletics and NCAA into a new era. (2025, June 8). Sports Enthusiasts. https://sportsenthusiasts.net/2025/06/08/house-settlement-finalized-to-push-college-athletics-and-ncaa-into-a-new-era/
House settlement hurting Olympic sports. (2025). Optimum Sports Consulting Newsletter, #283. https://optimumsportsconsulting.substack.com/p/house-settlement-hurting-olympic
House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2025) (final approval of settlement).
Non-scholarship athletes argue proposal to fix roster-limit rule in lawsuit does not go far enough. (2025). Associated Press / AOL. https://www.aol.com/non-scholarship-athletes-argue-proposal-154227800.html
Olympic sports face cuts in wake of House v. NCAA settlement. (2025, June 19). Front Office Sports. https://frontofficesports.com/dozens-of-olympic-sports-have-been-cut-in-wake-of-house-v-ncaa-settlement/
Roster caps and revenue sharing: Why walk-ons may disappear in 2026. (2025, November 11). 2aDays. https://www.2adays.com/blog/roster-caps-revenue-sharing-why-walk-ons-may-disappear-2026/
Sandy, R., Sloane, P. J., & Rosentraub, M. S. (2004). The economics of sport: An international perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.
The House v. NCAA settlement explained: What it means for the future of pay for college student-athletes. (2026, February 4). Honest Game. https://honestgame.com/blog/house-vs-the-ncaa/
‘Creating havoc everywhere’ — House-NCAA settlement causing crunch for Olympic sports as roster limits come into focus. (2025, January 30). Yahoo Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/creating-havoc-everywhere–house-ncaa-settlement-causing-crunch-for-olympic-sports-as-roster-limits-come-into-focus-234825869.html
What the NCAA settlement means for lacrosse as we know it. (2025, July 9). USA Lacrosse Magazine. https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/college/house-rules-what-ncaa-settlement-means-lacrosse-we-know-it
