Name Image Likeness

University of North Dakota Will Not Opt-In To Rev-Share, Takes Jabs at NCAA

With the opt-in deadline for the House v. NCAA settlement approaching, the University of North Dakota announces its decision to opt out of NIL revenue-sharing

Noah Henderson

North Dakota s Tsotne Tsartsidze shoots a three-pointer during a game against South Dakota on Saturday, February 4, 2023, at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion. Usd Native American Heritage Day 009
North Dakota s Tsotne Tsartsidze shoots a three-pointer during a game against South Dakota on Saturday, February 4, 2023, at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion. Usd Native American Heritage Day 009 / Erin Woodiel / Argus Leader / USA TODAY NETWORK
In this story:

Today, the University of North Dakota announced its intention not to opt in to the House v. NCAA settlement. Terms of the settlement allow participating Division I schools to begin NIL revenue sharing directly with athletes starting in the 2025-26 academic year. 

Bill Chaves, the Fighting Hawks’ Director of Athletics, broadcasted the news in a press release. The letter was as much an announcement of the school’s plans as it was a scathing critique of the specific terms and timelines of the House v. NCAA settlement. 

Many schools have indicated their decision to begin revenue-sharing with student-athletes. For those competing in FBS football, some form of revenue-sharing seems imperative to recruit and retain athletic talent worthy of fielding a competitive roster. 

For 2025, all schools that opt in will be allowed to compensate athletes up to a $20,500,000 quasi-salary cap. Schools in power conferences have almost unanimously signaled their intentions to pay the entire cap. However, those in conferences that drive less athletic revenue indicate that they will still implement revenue-sharing, albeit at a number below the maximum allotment. 

At the FCS level, it is much less certain whether institutions will engage in revenue sharing. Montana State and North Dakota State faced each other in the FCS national championship this year. Beginning next season, Montana State will share revenue with its athletes, while North Dakota State will not. 

While NDSU ultimately bested MSU in the championship game this season, depending on the size of Montana State’s revenue-share budget, the Bobcats could have a tremendous advantage over North Dakota State and most of the FCS landscape who do not intend to revenue-share moving forward.

Competitive inequity in the FCS aside, Chaves disdains this new landscape and the position it has given similarly situated institutions. 

First and foremost, Chaves underscores the challenging timing of the opt-in process: “Here's the odd part: The NCAA requires that we declare whether we plan to opt in by March 1, while the lawsuit's settlement will not occur until April 7.” The House v. NCAA settlement awaits formal approval in April. While it is likely approved, many letters of interest and objections to the settlement have cast doubt on its approval. 

Without seeing the tangible ramifications of the settlement, many administrators are forced to take a leap of faith to remain as competitive as possible in the new landscape of college sports. Chaves points out that the decision not to revenue-share is only for the 2025-26 season, “We believe this is the most responsible course of action, as the lawsuit has not yet been settled, and all the conditions are not yet known. Of course, we will revisit this decision at this time next year or post the settlement decision on April 7th.”

Schools that do not opt in to the settlement this year can still opt in before every subsequent season. Understanding the landscape better before jumping in will allow a school like UND to make a more intentional and informed decision about what is best for its student-athletes. 

Beyond the challenging deadlines for the opt-in process, Chaves criticizes many components of the settlement, including the requirement to pay damages of the settlement regardless of school’s decision to opt-in, new roster limits that will displace thousands of student-athletes nationwide, and the preferential treatment schools that only sponsor select sports at the Division I level will receive.

Many of these concerns relate to a fundamental issue with the settlement that Chaves addressed: smaller institutions like UND had no say in drafting the new rules of college sports, and their interests were not adequately advocated for. 

UND looks to avoid revenue sharing on the principle that it is ultimately best for the athletes they support: 

UND has made an incredible commitment to our student-athletes through scholarships, through other financial support, and through investment in facilities. This commitment to our student-athletes will continue as we give them opportunities to compete at the highest level.
 
The NCAA proclaims student-athletes will receive "extra benefits" if a university "opts in." This may be the case for some, but in the aggregate and if you consider the roster limits for all sports, this settlement might actually harm sports and student-athlete participation at UND as well as other student-athletes around the country. Further, if one asks the right questions, you may actually discover that schools such as UND might be supporting student-athletes in a greater way financially than some "opt in" schools.

Chaves indicates that schools that hastily rush into revenue-sharing, especially those without the revenue-generation capabilities of big-brand schools, will likely have to cut the resources given to athletes across the board. The ability to maintain non-revenue programs, scholarship allotment, and athletic training resources fits the mission and purpose North Dakota sees as most important at this juncture. 

Are the competitive benefits of revenue-share worth it for smaller schools? Will the recruiting advantages of revenue-share be worth the roster cuts and the redirection of revenue away from student-athlete support services at schools that can’t afford both? The University of North Dakota isn’t sure, but with such a weighty decision in front of them, waiting one season to see how it impacts hastier peer institutions is not a horrible idea. 

Recommended Articles

Published
Noah Henderson
NOAH HENDERSON

Professor Noah Henderson teaches in the sport management department at Loyola University Chicago. Outside the classroom, he advises companies, schools, and collectives on Name, Image, and Likeness best practices. His academic research focuses on the intersection of law, economics, and social consequences regarding college athletics, NIL, and sports gambling. Before teaching, Prof. Henderson was part of a team that amended Illinois NIL legislation and managed NIL collectives at the nation’s most prominent athletic institutions while working for industry leader Student Athlete NIL. He holds a Juris Doctor from the University of Illinois College of Law in Urbana-Champaign and a Bachelor of Economics from Saint Joseph’s University, where he was a four-year letter winner on the golf team. Prof. Henderson is a native of San Diego, California, and a former golf CIF state champion with Torrey Pines High School. Outside of athletics, he enjoys playing guitar, hanging out with dogs, and eating California burritos. You can follow him on Twitter: @NoahImgLikeness. 

Home/NIL News