Ivy League Declines NIL Revenue Sharing Amidst House Settlement Changes

On January 21, Ivy League Executive Director Robin Harris announced via an email, first reported by The Daily Pennsylvanian, that the conference will not opt in to NIL revenue sharing through the highly publicized House v. NCAA settlement.
Next academic year, the NCAA is expected to make a groundbreaking change to its longstanding policy preventing schools from directly compensating their athletes.
Pending the formal approval of the House settlement at the final hearing on April 7, Division I schools that opt-in to the settlement’s terms will be able to revenue share up to $20,500,000 annually to their student-athletes.
Schools in college sports largest conferences are expected to pay up to the entire cap; less-resourced schools are expected to share revenues below the maximum allotment, and some schools will not participate in revenue-sharing at all.
The Ivy League’s decision is the first conference-wide resolution on resource allocation. The conference has famously implemented a seventy-year moratorium on athletic scholarships, known as “The Ivy Agreement,” to foster a landscape more focused on academics at its institutions. This compact was recently challenged in court and upheld despite antitrust concerns.
The Ivy League has also not participated in the prominent trend of athlete compensation via NIL collectives. These payments are inducements for athletic performance thinly disguised as endorsement contracts.
While “pay-for-play” agreements are off the table for Ivy League athletes, bona fide endorsement deals and sponsorships remain available for athletes. The decision not to opt-in to revenue sharing will not impact the ability of Ivy League athletes to leverage their influence and notoriety in commercials, merchandise licensing, or any other brand-based NIL-related activities.
Opting out of revenue sharing is unsurprising given the Ivy League's historic staunch refusal to offer athletic compensation. For non-revenue sports, where athletic aid beyond scholarships is less common and less significant, Ivy League institutions will remain relatively unaffected by their decision. The value of the education provided at these premier academic institutions will serve as enough incentive to recruit some academically inclined athletes.
However, rejecting to compensate athletes in football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball, where most athletic compensation is allocated across the NCAA landscape, will further hamper recruiting efforts for Ivy League institutions in these sports. Playing and coaching positions in the Ivy League will become less attractive for revenue sports in the revenue-sharing era.
With a March 1 deadline for opting in to the settlement looming over Division I institutions, more decisions from schools and conferences are expected to follow in short time