How The Modern Era Of College Sports Is Ruining The College Experience

From the years of after-school practice and weekend games to higher-stakes collegiate competitions, coaches, educators, and parents recognize the value of athletics.

But — as with most things — college sports can easily get out of hand without proper limits.

College athletics are almost unrecognizable from a few years ago. At least 30 states allow student-athletes to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), and the 2025 House v. NCAA decision allows schools to pay their athletes up to $20.5 million, increasing each year. This is a radical shift from college sports’ long history of amateurism. College athletes operate as professionals who transfer between institutions in order to chase the most lucrative deal. The incentives in such a system serve the goals of professionalized, big-time sports, especially athletes who want to accelerate their path to fame and fortune.

The problem is that colleges and universities have a very distinct mission. Their core goal is educating students. Study, growth in knowledge, practicing hard and soft skills — these all serve universities’ primary educational purpose. Athletics can, too, so long as they support, not frustrate, this mission. The scorecard is in, however, and college athletics too often side with the latter.

The University of North Carolina (UNC) system, home of the Carolina Tar Heels, is one case study of this unfortunate phenomenon. A new report from the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal examines the academic and financial data for the system’s 15 intercollegiate athletics departments, and uncovers some sobering findings:

Students Bear the Cost

For one, athletics place an excessive financial burden on students. Student fees that fund student groups and access to recreational facilities seem reasonable. Paying a high amount directly to the athletic department is harder to justify. Nonetheless, most North Carolina institutions require students to pay upwards of $800 a year for their sports teams. Some examples include UNC-Asheville’s athletics fee of $906 and Elizabeth City State University’s $899 fee.

Significant Reliance on Institutional and Government Support

At most North Carolina schools, at least half — and often more — of athletics revenue comes from institutional and government support. The highest-revenue-generating schools, UNC-Chapel Hill and NC State, rely least on these funds. For example, only about 1% of UNC-Chapel Hill’s athletics revenue comes from institutional and government support. Other Division I schools, however, don’t fare as well. About 50% of North Carolina Central’s and 36% of Western Carolina’s athletic revenue comes from institutional or government sources. The takeaway here shouldn’t be for these schools to become more like Chapel Hill. Mimicking its success is both unlikely and undesirable, as competitive high-pressure sports often come at a high academic cost. Instead, institutions should cut superfluous expenses, such as high coach compensation.

Educational Cost

Playing football or basketball at schools like UNC or NC State often opens doors to professional stardom. High-stakes competition, however, can clash with colleges’ and universities’ academic mission. Student athletes must balance demanding training and travel schedules alongside their studies. Graduation rates indicate that many athletes struggle to strike that balance.

Basketball and football players at UNC-Chapel Hill graduate at much lower rates than the overall student body, at 54%, 76%, and 91.3%, respectively. NC State is similar, with basketball players graduating at 18%, football at 55%, and the overall student body at 85.5%.

Reports of misbehavior emanating from Chapel Hill’s football program also indicate a lack of respect from some athletes and even personnel for the university.

Playing the Long Game

Reforming intercollegiate athletics is possible, but it will not be popular. It’s also not one-size-fits-all. Safeguarding academia’s higher mission requires bold action. The Martin Center recommends a varied approach depending on schools’ division and financial status.

Some schools, for example, should consider dropping down to Division III. DIII is far less costly, which would lower the price tag for both the institutions and students. It would also relieve pressure on athletes, allowing them to focus on their education.

Another recommendation is for states to impose NIL caps. The current ecosystem allows student-athletes to transfer between institutions to chase the best NIL deal. Capping NIL may slow down institution-hopping and allow athletes to pay more attention to their studies. Ending large buyouts for coaches and conducting a sport-by-sport audit are other opportunities for cost savings. To learn more about these and other recommendations, read the Martin Center’s full report here.

Academics cannot be the runner-up on a university campus. In a competition between a university’s educational mission and its sports team, the educational mission must win.

***

Shannon Watkins is a research and policy fellow at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.