UL Faces Financial Crossroads Amid NCAA Revenue-Sharing Reforms

UL is at a pivotal juncture following the NCAA's recent $2.8 billion settlement in the House v. NCAA case. This landmark decision permits Division I schools to directly compensate student-athletes, introducing a new revenue-sharing model that allows up to $20.5 million per institution annually, with the cap set to increase over the next decade .

Assessing UL's Position

Sources close to UL have said that like most G5 programs, Louisiana will not be in the position to cover the full cost associated with the House settlement.  Without multi million dollars in annual revenue  from a media rights deal, most (if not all) schools outside of the Power Four conferences will find themselves in the same position as UL.

The good news? Louisiana continues to position itself to opt-in to the settlement, and will work to partially fund some elements of the model.  They expect to work diligently to determine where to direct funding to have the biggest impact across all sports that are currently sponsored.

We've reached out to Athletic Director Dr. Bryan Maggard and will have more on this in our upcoming podcast later this week.

What exactly does "fully fund" mean?

The phrase “fully fund athletes” in the context of the NCAA’s new model has two facets: (1) Distributing the maximum allowable revenue share to athletes, and (2) Providing scholarships for every roster slot under the new scholarship-limit freedoms. Sun Belt schools, including UL, are evaluating how close they can come to “full funding” on both counts, and what hurdles lie in the way.

Revenue Share Payouts: Sun Belt programs are indicating intent to participate in revenue sharing, but most will not come close to spending up to the theoretical cap. In fact, because the cap ($20.5M) is based on Power Five revenues, no Sun Belt school generates enough income to approach that figure without exceeding 22% of its budget (which would be financially reckless). A more realistic target is hitting the 22% benchmark. Several administrators privately acknowledge that something in the $1–3 million range is what most Group of Five schools can manage annually for athlete pay. As shown earlier, Sun Belt members average about $2 million if committing 22% of revenues. It’s expected that most, if not all, Sun Belt universities will try to meet that 22% mark in order to remain competitive. A few schools with stronger donor support or revenue sports (for example, a larger football fanbase) might even slightly exceed that percentage, pulling in extra money from their foundations or one-time sources to pay athletes. The settlement technically allows schools to pay above 22% of their own revenue as long as they do not exceed the $20.5M absolute cap. In theory, a Sun Belt school could spend, say, 50% of its athletics revenue on players – but that would almost certainly require sacrificing other expenses or running a deficit, an approach no responsible administration would take. The consensus is that Sun Belt programs will push to the upper limit of what they can afford, but not beyond it. “Participation in revenue sharing is optional,” the NCAA’s guidance notes, “however, doing so would likely put [any non-participating] school at a significant competitive disadvantage in recruiting”. Simply put, the Sun Belt can’t afford not to pay its athletes at least something. We have already seen concrete steps: South Alabama’s new fund, mentioned above, is one example of a Sun Belt school preparing to funnel resources to cover these payments. Others, like Appalachian State, Troy, and UL, are reportedly formulating similar plans through their booster clubs and budget committees (though not all have publicly announced them yet).

A challenge in executing the payouts will be logistical. Many Sun Belt athletic departments are not large bureaucracies; they will have to set up mechanisms for tracking athlete NIL rights, ensuring academic or participation conditions are met for payment, and actually disbursing funds (likely through the university’s financial aid or payroll system). With the settlement finalized in June and payments slated to start as soon as Fall 2025, there is a time crunch to get these systems in place. Compliance staff will also have to coordinate with the new College Sports Commission on reporting all outside NIL deals and ensuring nothing pushes an athlete over fair-market value or into pay-for-play territory. For smaller schools, handling this regulatory burden is a concern – they may need to hire additional compliance personnel or outsource some of these functions, which is yet another expense. In short, Sun Belt schools plan to pay their athletes, but they are bracing for a steep learning curve as they implement the framework quickly and correctly.

Scholarship Funding and Roster Management: Fully funding all scholarships (meaning covering the cost of scholarship for every athlete up to the roster cap) is an aspirational goal that may not be immediately reachable for every Sun Belt program. Under the new rules, all sports now have roster limits and the ability to award aid up to those limits. For sports that were already “headcount” (full scholarship per athlete) like women’s volleyball or men’s basketball, nothing changes except that a few roster spots might be added (e.g. men’s basketball rosters cap at 15, up from 13 scholarships previously). UL  and other Sun Belt schools will likely honor the new scholarship counts in those sports because the differences are small. The bigger impact is in football and in traditionally partial-scholarship sports:

• Football: Rosters shrink to 105 maximum, but scholarships could rise from the current 85 limit to as many as 105 if fully funded. It appears unlikely that Sun Belt schools will immediately jump to 105 scholarships. Even some Power Five leagues (the SEC, for example) preemptively announced they would stick to the 85-scholarship limit for at least the 2025 season. This was a cost-containment move, anticipating that not every school wants or can afford 20 extra full-ride scholarships (which could easily mean $500,000+ in additional tuition costs). Sun Belt officials are certainly mindful of this. Conference USA’s presidents have discussed possibly setting their own lower scholarship limits despite the NCAA cap, and Sun Belt leadership could consider a similar approach to keep a level playing field within the league. If, for instance, all Sun Belt members mutually agree to cap football scholarships at 85 (or some number below 105), that would prevent a costly “arms race” of roster size. On the other hand, if no such agreement is made, any individual school must decide: do we fund beyond 85 scholarships to bring in more players (and potentially gain depth), or save money by keeping some walk-ons unfunded? Given budget realities, UL Lafayette and its peers will likely phase in any football scholarship increases slowly. They might offer, say, 5-10 additional scholarships in year one to cover some key walk-ons (especially those playing significant roles), and gradually grow towards 105 if finances allow. The House settlement included a grandfather clause so that current walk-ons above the cap don’t get cut immediately – many schools will carry 110+ in 2025 by grandfathering, then pare down by attrition. UL can use this period to decide how many of those formerly unpaid players it can afford to put on scholarship.
• Equivalency Sports: Sports like baseball, soccer, track & field, etc., now have a chance to be fully funded. UL has prided itself on sports like baseball and softball, which have passionate followings locally. Fully funding those rosters (around 30-35 players each) with scholarships would be a huge boon to competitiveness – it means no athlete on the team is paying their own way. But doing so is a significant financial commitment. Baseball is a prime example: previously capped at 11.7 scholarships for ~35 players, it could now use 35 full scholarships. A Sun Belt school might incrementally increase baseball scholarships from 11.7 toward that 35 cap as resources permit, rather than overnight. Similar logic applies to sports like track (which often had fewer than half the team on scholarship). UL’s Athletic Director will have to prioritize which programs get additional scholarship funding first. Title IX will require a balance: for every extra scholarship given in a men’s sport, an equivalent must be found for women’s sports. Thus, if UL fully funds 20 more football scholarships down the road, it must also fund 20 women’s scholarships (perhaps across sports like women’s track, soccer, softball, etc.). This double cost may slow the pace of adopting full rosters.

Challenges Ahead: The push to “fully fund” athlete support in the Sun Belt comes with several challenges. First and foremost is financial sustainability. Sun Belt athletic budgets will be strained by the combination of new payments and potentially dozens of extra scholarships. UL, for instance, might have to invest an additional few million dollars between revenue sharing and scholarships – an amount that could equal 5–10% of its current athletic budget. Finding this money yearly, not just as a one-off, will require either increased revenues (ticket sales, donations, sponsorships) or subsidies. This is where ideas like Rep. Riser’s sports betting fund or other state subsidies become very interesting for schools like UL. If public funding or new sponsorship deals can offset these costs, UL and Sun Belt peers will be much more comfortable fully funding the athlete benefits. If not, tough decisions loom, possibly including cutting back on other expenses or even sports (though there is no indication yet of sport cuts in the Sun Belt as a result of this settlement).

Another challenge is booster “fatigue.” In the NIL era, booster collectives have already been pouring money to attract players. With schools now taking on the primary role of paying athletes, Sun Belt programs will likely lean on the same donor base for contributions to these new funds. Some analysts warn that this could lead to booster fatigue – donors may be tapped out or less motivated if their contributions simply replace what was previously a booster-funded NIL deal. UL Lafayette’s development office will have to craft messaging to keep donors engaged, emphasizing that their support now directly helps UL athletes and keeps the program competitive. There’s also a silver lining to pitch: revenue sharing comes with transparency and oversight, which means donors can give knowing the funds are properly accounted for and used as intended (unlike the wild-west days of NIL). UL can sell this as “invest in our athletes through an official, regulated channel.”

Logistically, UL and Sun Belt schools must also educate their athletes on the new system. Players will essentially become recipients of what some dub an “athlete salary.” They’ll need clarity on how and when they get paid, what conditions apply (for example, a school might require that an athlete remain academically eligible or stay on the roster through the full season to receive the full amount). It’s a cultural shift – players are not employees, but this starts to resemble a payroll in some ways. Maintaining team harmony will be important; coaches and administrators might have to manage locker-room expectations if, say, a star quarterback earns a larger share of the pool than a backup. So far, UL’s leadership has been supportive of sharing the wealth with players who help generate it, aligning with the spirit of the settlement.

Finally, the Sun Belt as a collective may coordinate on certain policies. As noted, the SEC’s approach to scholarship limits might influence what Sun Belt does. Commissioner Gill will surely be discussing with Sun Belt university presidents how to competitively position the conference. They could decide on common cutoff points for scholarships or even agree on a roughly similar percentage of revenue to spend, to prevent intra-conference disparities. The goal would be to ensure no Sun Belt school dramatically outspends another on athlete compensation, keeping the playing field level within the league even as they all chase the bigger conferences. So far, no public announcement has detailed such an agreement, but it remains a possibility as the dust settles.

Looking Ahead

As the July 1 implementation date approaches, UL and other Sun Belt institutions are in the process of finalizing their strategies to comply with the new revenue-sharing model. The university's decisions will likely consider factors such as existing athletic department revenues, donor contributions, and the potential impact on non-revenue sports. The coming months will be critical in determining how UL balances its commitment to student-athlete compensation with the financial realities of its athletic program.

‍