Early Signing Period Reveals the Messy Future of College Sports

As the non-football early signing period begins, college sports is entering a transformative and uncertain era. Arizona Athletic Director Desireé Reed-Francois and her team spent months creating 26 different models to navigate the new age of player compensation. Through trial and adjustment, they settled on one model, which is now being implemented.

This week, Arizona distributed revenue-sharing contracts to recruits, marking a historic shift. Instead of solely signing national letters of intent, athletes are now entering into agreements that include guaranteed compensation, contingent on the final approval of a settlement expected to be fully implemented in the 2025–26 academic year.

A New Era of College Sports Compensation

These agreements mark a pivotal moment in college athletics, with schools taking over compensation responsibilities previously handled by booster collectives. However, this evolution is fraught with uncertainty. Coaches and administrators are building rosters without clear revenue-sharing frameworks, while collectives are scrambling to “frontload” deals to maximize compensation before enforcement policies take effect.

Revenue-sharing agreements, like Arizona’s seven-page contracts, guarantee athletes compensation tied to eligibility and roster status. However, the agreements come with caveats and legal complexities. Critics argue that these contracts resemble pay-for-play deals, lacking the protections of employment agreements. “This creates a paper trail that makes the legal argument for employment stronger,” said Jim Cavale, founder of Athletes.Org.

Challenges and Implications for College Programs

The distribution of revenue remains a contentious issue. Football and men’s basketball programs, the primary revenue generators, are expected to receive up to 90% of the revenue-sharing pool, leaving limited resources for other sports. Title IX compliance and legal challenges may arise from this imbalance, particularly for programs relying heavily on booster-funded NIL deals.

Adding to the complexity, many universities are experimenting with different contract structures. Some are incorporating buyout clauses and multi-year terms, while others are using single-year agreements. Florida State Athletic Director Michael Alford humorously described the situation as schools issuing “IOUs” to athletes, given the unsettled future of revenue sharing.

The Role of Enforcement and Legal Scrutiny

To ensure compliance, the NCAA is considering outsourcing enforcement to Deloitte, which would operate a clearinghouse to regulate non-school compensation. This system would review deals for fair market value, rejecting those deemed excessive. However, legal experts question whether such enforcement can withstand legal challenges, particularly in the absence of collective bargaining.

Critics, including attorney Brian Davis, argue that requiring NIL contracts to undergo third-party review infringes on athletes’ rights and could face significant legal objections. “The NCAA’s attempt to control NIL deals through a clearinghouse is unlikely to survive in court,” said Davis.

Looking Ahead: Opportunities and Risks

As the signing period unfolds, schools are leveraging strategies like frontloading payments to maximize cap flexibility. Early enrollees could receive the bulk of their compensation before July 1, 2025, when new revenue-sharing rules take effect. While this creates short-term opportunities, it also underscores the broader uncertainties in this rapidly evolving landscape.

The transition to a revenue-sharing model represents a seismic shift in college sports. While it offers athletes unprecedented financial opportunities, it also exposes schools, collectives, and athletes to significant legal and logistical challenges. As Reed-Francois put it, “This year could be bumpy, but we have a pathway forward.”