Why Tennis Is Becoming a Casualty of College Football and Basketball’s Insatiable Budget

As college athletic departments zoom past the $20.5 million revenue sharing cap, one sport, tennis, is suffering the consequences. Why?

The University of Arkansas is now the only SEC school without a women's tennis team and just the second without a men's team after its decision to cut both programs. | Jasen Vinlove-Imagn Images

Like the Nintendo character Kirby opening its maw and inhaling everything in its path, college football and basketball programs across the country have a voracious appetite for their schools' athletic budgets, one that has now begun to cannibalize other programs within universities.

Just a couple weeks ago, the University of Arkansas announced it was dropping its men’s and women’s tennis teams, with athletic director Hunter Yurachek citing the need to “balance competitive opportunities, resources and the long-term sustainability of our department.”

While current student-athletes will have their scholarships honored should they choose to continue studying at the University, the shocking decision leaves the Razorbacks with 17 sponsored sports—and invites a whole lot of questions.

Why would Arkansas even be in a position to cut its tennis program?

It all traces back to the 2025 House v. NCAA settlement, which allowed schools to pay student-athletes directly, with a cap of up to $20.5 million across each entire athletic department, a figure that is set to increase every year for the length of the 10-year deal. The $20.5 million cap does not factor in outside NIL payments.

The deal was supposed to curtail skyrocketing costs of paying college players, with big-banked NIL collectives the primary culprits. Instead, schools have blown past the cap. There are tales of $20 million rosters in college football and basketball, as the competition intensifies in the survival-of-the-fittest transfer portal, where football and basketball programs jockey to field the best rosters in the two sports integral to athletic department revenue.

The harsh truth seems to be what Louisville board of trustees chairman Larry Benz told Sports Illustrated's Pat Forde in a recent piece about the school’s push to combat rising deficits by funneling money into the football and basketball programs.

“The financial reality is, if you don’t win in football, nothing else matters,” Benz told Forde.

That brings us back to Arkansas. It’s no coincidence that the school cut its tennis programs on the heels of an abysmal season for the football program, in which Arkansas limped to a 2–10 record—including an 0–8 mark in SEC play—resulting in then-coach Sam Pittman’s firing in September.

According to the NCAA Membership Financial Reporting Survey obtained by Extra Points, the reported total 2025 expenses for the Razorbacks’ two tennis teams were $2,350,667 while the total revenue was just $3,284.

If you're wondering how backward the math is in collegiate athletics, look no further than the fact that Arkansas will be on the hook for installed payments for fired football coach Sam Pittman’s $7.734 million buyout, but axed its tennis programs, which came with a price tag worth a fraction of the cost of Pittman’s total buyout.

If anything, that speaks to a problem that isn’t going away anytime soon, given the arms race in football and basketball. And while it may not be only tennis programs getting cut—the Pittsburgh University swim teams seem to be in the danger zone despite recent successes—the racket sport does seem to be the first to go on the chopping block.

Since Arkansas’s announcement, Saint Louis dropped its two tennis programs, Illinois State dropped its men’s program, North Dakota axed both programs, and Gardner-Webb earlier this year announced that 2025–-26 would be the penultimate season for both programs.

It begs the question. Why tennis?

Why colleges are cutting their tennis programs

In a lengthy statement, the Intercollegiate Tennis Association addressed the recent news with a call to action.

“While every college and university and athletic department must make their own decisions regarding the future of their respective program, the ITA is deeply concerned about the loss of opportunities for college athletes, particularly the loss of tennis programs,” the statement read.“... The ITA calls on the University of Arkansas and all other schools which recently dropped programs to reconsider their decision and re-institute their tennis teams.”

Included in the statement, based upon conversations with athletic directors, were six reasons why some athletic departments are making the difficult decision to cut tennis programs.

Why Some Universities Are Cutting Tennis Programs
Limited access to or lack of on-campus tennis facilities, especially indoor courts
The cost of maintaining or upgrading tennis facilities
Restricted access to tennis courts
Challenges in meeting roster expectations
Inconsistent alumni and community engagement
Coaching turnover

ITA CEO David Mullins expanded upon those issues in a recent interview with Front Office Sports, in which he laid two more potential reasons why tennis teams are being cut: their small roster size relative to other sports, meaning fewer athletes—in theory—are being affected, and the large number of international players in collegiate tennis.

The latter reason was also explored by former men’s professional tennis player and current ESPN analyst Patrick McEnroe, who had this to say in the aftermath of Arkansas’s decision to cut the men’s and women’s tennis programs.

“Division 1 tennis is now the most international major sport in college athletics, roughly 64% international on the men's side, 61% on the women's side,” McEnroe said on his SiriusXM Mad Dog Radio show, Holding Court with Patrick McEnroe. “So yeah, I think it’s time, everyone, time for the NCAA, time for conferences, time for lawmakers, if necessary, there has to be a cap on the number of international players in American college tennis.

“A cap, a real rule that says American universities have a responsibility to also develop American players, because if we don’t do it, who’s going to do it? And if American college tennis doesn’t serve, at least in part, American tennis, then don’t be shocked that more of the athletic directors decide we don’t need this.”

Whether it’s potential issues with facilities or something else entirely, tennis programs serving as the sacrificial lambs may just be the beginning of yet another crisis in college athletics.

---