How will the House v. NCAA settlement, revenue sharing impact women’s college basketball?

TAMPA, Fla. — After UConn crushed South Carolina on Sunday to win another national championship, women’s college basketball can turn its attention to a court drastically different but no less important than the hardwood at Amalie Arena.

Advertisement

Courtroom 3 of California’s Oakland Courthouse, where a federal judge, Claudia Wilken, will hold Monday’s final hearing over a settlement in the landmark House v. NCAA lawsuit.

Assuming she signs off on the agreement in the coming hours, days or weeks, schools will be able to start paying players in every sport directly this year. Women’s basketball stands at a fascinating intersection at the dawn of the revenue-sharing era; it’s not a traditional cash cow like football or men’s basketball, but it’s more valuable than swimming or soccer. Women’s hoops is not generally a revenue-producing sport, with South Carolina coach Dawn Staley noting it’s “not there yet,” but the top collegians can make more than the top professionals.

Good luck figuring out how those forces and each school’s de facto $20.5 million salary cap will determine who cuts down the nets at next year’s Final Four in Phoenix and beyond.

“I think it’s going to affect a lot,” UCLA coach Cori Close said. “I don’t think we know how exactly.”

‘It will ruin parity’

UConn coach Geno Auriemma, unsurprisingly, was blunt about the impact he expects revenue-sharing to have on future tournaments.

Advertisement

“It will ruin parity. That’s No. 1,” Auriemma said.

Auriemma’s argument is easy to follow. When schools pay players directly, money will be an even bigger force in talent acquisition and retention. As the cost of success rises, fewer programs will be willing or able to pay it.

“So when you do those kind of things and it’s money-driven, it’s going to be, who is going to become the Dodgers and Yankees?” Auriemma said. “And how many of those are you going to have? And how many other programs in women’s basketball are going to be Milwaukee and Kansas City?”

Except the Brewers and the Royals aren’t competing for the same dollars as the Packers and Chiefs. At the college level, there’s the added layer of different sports at one school pulling from a shared pot.

Advertisement

The settlement does not detail how much each school must spend on each sport going forward, but most major programs are expected to share money similarly to the Georgia model: about 75 percent to football, 15 percent to men’s basketball, 5 percent to women’s basketball and 5 percent to everyone else. Close said she believes the Bruins’ brass will take care of her program, but she’s “nervous” about the big picture if different schools are less committed to her game.

“I’m lucky to be at a place where women’s basketball is really important,” Texas coach Vic Schaefer said. “But I’ll say this: I need football to be good.”

If it’s not, will a school’s powerbrokers divert more funds to make it good again? Or will an athletic department’s other programs suffer because the rising tide of football fails to lift everyone else?

The case for greater parity

If Auriemma’s prediction is on one end of the spectrum, Chiney Ogwumike’s thoughts are closer to the other. She envisions a path to greater parity in a sport that remains top-heavy.

Advertisement

If most schools use a similar revenue-sharing formula and have the same cap, that, in theory, should level the playing field in recruiting.

“I do think it creates opportunities for stars to be built elsewhere,” said Ogwumike, the former Stanford star forward and current ESPN analyst. “Now, other schools can be competitive just because of the money, right?”

There’s some evidence to back her up.

A decade ago, the McDonald’s All-American rosters featured high school recruits committed to 14 different schools. Seven college programs (including the usual suspects of UConn and Notre Dame) had at least two recruits in the showcase. This year’s event featured recruits for 18 different programs. Only four — Stanford, Tennessee, LSU and South Carolina — had two or more participating prospects.

Advertisement

It’s impossible to say how much of those decisions were based on finances in future revenue-sharing promises or name, image and likeness (NIL) deals. But it’s reasonable to assume it wasn’t zero, which means player compensation has helped spread elite talent across a slightly wider array of programs.

Perhaps the new system will spread the talent even more. In January, the NCAA membership voted unanimously to start awarding payouts for tournament wins — “units,” in NCAA lingo. With an increased financial incentive to win big, will we see new schools consider investing more in women’s basketball and its players? What if Auriemma’s Dodgers and Yankees aren’t UConn and South Carolina but mid-majors or Power 4 also-rans that no one expects?

‘So out of whack’

As if the two extremes weren’t complicated enough, Monday’s hearing comes during a complex time in women’s basketball.

Advertisement

Between the WNBA’s expiring collective bargaining agreement, collective-fueled NIL payments and the transition to revenue sharing, the college game’s top stars earn more than pros.

“It’s so out of whack,” UCLA’s Close said.

So is this: As Staley figures out next season’s roster, she sees a third-party NIL pot that’s larger than what she expects to have for direct revenue-sharing payments.

“That just doesn’t add up,” Staley said.

The Gamecocks’ NIL budget will get a boost around Thanksgiving by competing in the Players Era tournament alongside Texas, UCLA and Duke. It’s a reminder that the $20.5 million cap is expected to function more like a floor than a ceiling and that schools can find creative ways outside it.

Advertisement

“You think anybody in their right mind is going to stick to $20.5 (million)?” Auriemma asked. “That might be what’s on the books, but that ain’t going to be the final number. There’s nobody out there looking around to collect taxes on that.”

Auriemma paused. It was the day before his 24th Final Four, and his passionate warning about revenue-sharing had gone on long enough.

“And we play UCLA. They’re really good,” Auriemma added. “Just thought I’d throw that in.”

Over the next three days, Auriemma’s Huskies crushed the Bruins by 34 in the largest blowout in women’s Final Four history, then blew out South Carolina by 23 to win their 12th national title. So much for parity.

This article originally appeared in The Athletic.

Sports Business, Women’s College Basketball, The Athletic Women’s Basketball Show

2025 The Athletic Media Company

This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.