Will Trump cuts to universities affect college sports? 'Touchy topic'

Will Trump cuts to universities affect college sports? 'Touchy topic' As universities face financial cuts from the Trump Administration, college sports tries to find a way to fund huge new expenses .
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Livvy Dunne on NIL and how female athletes can benefit from it
Meghan Hall chats with Livvy Dunne about the world of NIL and how she's setting a course for future college athletes to succeed like she did.
Sports Seriously
Hardly anybody in charge of major college athletics wants to talk about this publicly.
It's the Trump effect. Will the Trump administration's plan to defund American universities trickle down to college sports in the form of funding cuts?
USA TODAY Sports contacted more than 25 universities and college leadership organizations to ask them about concerns that athletics could be affected at least indirectly by this federal funding uncertainty. Almost all of them dodged the question by not responding at all, or by providing vague, undetailed answers, or by saying they didn't want to talk about it on the record.
'I'm not surprised that nobody wants to talk, particularly at red-state public universities,' said Robert Kelchen, a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee. 'It's such a touchy topic right now.'
At the same time, many of the same colleges are bracing for another coming financial earthquake after a federal judge recently approved the House vs. NCAA legal settlement. This allowed colleges to start paying their athletes directly for the first time ever, creating a massive new cost of up to $20.5 million per school per year starting July 1, according to the NCAA.
Trouble and tension in major college sports
Add it all together and tensions have started simmering during a titanic moment in history for higher education and college sports. Expenses are going up in athletic departments while the other side of campus remains anxious about Trump cuts to higher education, such as grants for medical and scientific research.
'There's never been a time in college sports where so many issues have hit at once − both with the squeeze on institutional support and now this brand-new way of doing business in college sports,' said Amy Perko, CEO of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.
USA TODAY Sports examined how it might affect athletics, why it's a sensitive topic and what some schools are doing about it.
How the federal uncertainty trickles down
Trump's attempted funding cutbacks at American universities aren't directly related to college sports. They instead largely involve funding for research at these universities, including from the National Institutes of Health, which faces $18 billion in cuts under the Trump administration.
But as part of their universities, most athletic departments depend on university financial support to pay the bills. And when universities face funding shortfalls, they have to make decisions about what to cut and where. That's where that institutional support for athletics could get squeezed.
Out of 232 Division I public schools tracked by USA TODAY Sports in fiscal year 2023, only 12 athletic departments reported receiving no institutional support from their schools, including from student fees or university transfers. That includes big football schools such as Ohio State, Penn State, Texas and LSU.
On the other end of the spectrum, 75 Division I public schools received at least $20 million in university support from their schools in fiscal year 2023, including from student fees. Sixteen received direct institutional support from their schools of more than $20 million, not counting student fees, led by Houston ($39.7 million), California ($36.7 million), Cincinnati ($35.5 million) and Connecticut ($30.2 million).
'As a matter of basic math, less money from any source will constrain any university's ability to make discretionary decisions about how to allocate their finite resources,' said Roger Pielke, emeritus professor at the University of Colorado. 'Something then has to give − either more revenues are needed or some activities must be cut back. If athletics demands more funding (such as for paying athletes) that compounds the issues.'
A number of examples have emerged.
At the University of Washington
In March, the provost at the University of Washington sent out a message outlining the financial risks the university was facing, including state budget shortfalls and the 'unprecedented and rapid policy changes at the federal level.' The provost mentioned possible cutbacks including 'pausing non-essential staff hiring,' limiting faculty hiring and reducing food purchases and other discretionary spending.
'These measures apply to all units that report to the President and Provost, including Athletics,' university spokesman Victor Balta confirmed to USA TODAY Sports.
How that applied to athletics isn't clear. The university didn't get into detail about that when asked about it. But the athletic department received $10 million direct institutional support in fiscal 2024. Now the House settlement is also pressuring the Huskies, too, just like all the other schools in major college sports.
The Huskies are projecting a $19 million deficit in athletics for fiscal year 2026. Loans will help cover the gap, including $10 million from the Big Ten Conference in the form of a revenue-sharing advance and more from an 'internal loan of institutional funds,' Balta said.
'Rising expenses and back damages related to the House settlement are factors, as are expenses associated with transitioning to the Big Ten Conference,' Balta said. 'UW Athletics did execute required budget reductions and revenue enhancements in their approved FY26 operating budget – they were not held harmless in this exercise related to overall budget concerns.'
At Michigan State
This is happening to different degrees at other universities, too, each dealing with it in different ways. At Michigan State, for example, President Kevin Guskiewicz sent a message to faculty and staff fin May, noting financial challenges that included navigating 'federal policies and directives that undercut our ability to advance our land-grant mission and continue essential research projects that make life better.'
A subsequent memo went to university leaders calling for a 9% base reduction in university-wide general funds over the next two years.
Asked if that included MSU athletics, university spokeswoman Amber McCann replied, 'The reductions are to general funds across the university.'
Additional details were not provided. MSU athletics received less than $650,000 in direct institutional support in fiscal 2024 and $3.6 million in indirect institutional support in the form of costs covered by the university but not charged to athletics. MSU athletics also reported an annual operating deficit of $16.7 million for fiscal 2024.
But even at the small number of schools that provide little or no institutional support for athletics, disharmony can increase across campus if athletic departments are insulated from university budget cuts. Take Nebraska, for example.
Is athletics 'sharing the pain?'
The University of Nebraska Board of Regents on June 19 approved a 5% tuition increase amid financial challenges that included less state funding than they asked for and an estimated federal funding reduction of nearly $12 million. The new budget included $18 million in cuts and no funding for pay increases for university staff.
But over in the athletic department, football coach Matt Rhule is set to get a $1 million pay increase this year, then another $1 million more in 2026, according to the terms of his contract. Athletic director Troy Dannen is set for a $100,000 annual raise.
The athletic department didn't respond to an inquiry about it.
'There is a feeling that the athletic department should be sharing the pain,' said Jordan Gonzales, president of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Staff Senate.
Nebraska is one of the relatively few schools in the nation that reported receiving no university support for athletics in fiscal 2023. Even so, any immunity from university austerity measures adds to the perception that athletic departments are becoming increasingly detached from their universities as they move to become more like professional sports.
'When the university asks its core academic support staff to tighten their belts and absorb budget cuts while the athletic department appears to operate under a separate set of financial rules, it fosters a sense of two separate universities − one that's facing austerity and another that is investing in and entering into multimillion deals and contracts,' Gonzales said.
Why it's a sensitive subject
As the Trump administration targets certain colleges such as Harvard for funding cuts, others are wary of becoming the next target. When resources shrink on campus, discord also intensifies about university priorities and who is or isn't taking on a fair share of the burden. Some colleges might not even want to talk about any cutbacks in sports because now is the time they want to appear flush with cash to pay athletes.
Among those that didn't respond to inquiries about federal funding cuts affecting athletics were UCLA, Virginia, Stanford, Minnesota, Houston, Northwestern, Harvard and the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics.
"I think people are laying low," said Ruth Johnston, vice president of consulting at the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). "I think people are wanting to wait and see a little bit."
In the meantime, the pressure mounts for Division I athletic departments to spend money on players, all the way up to the initial cap of $20.5 million. Not doing so would mean falling behind the competition.
'They need more money right now,' said James Nussbaum, a former Northwestern football player and in-house counsel at Indiana University now at the firm Church Church Hittle + Antrim. 'It's those schools in the middle that are going to be really interesting to watch as they try to figure out if they want to continue to fund athletics at the level they have been as it becomes more and more clear that they're not going to be able to compete with those top-tier schools, just from a resource standpoint.'
Where will the money come from?
Some athletic departments are getting students to help pay the bills. Some are getting more from their universities. Some might pursue other sources:
∎ The Board of Governors for the State University System of Florida on June 18 granted permission for state universities to give a $22.5 million annual lifeline to athletics through at least June 2028.
∎ At the University of Michigan, athletic director Warde Manuel sent a letter to supporters after the House settlement was approved, saying his department faced a projected deficit of $27 million for the 2025-26 academic year, including $20.5 million for paying players. The letter asked for support and mentioned a planned 10% reduction in staff, in addition to other cost-cutting moves. Spokesman Dave Ablauf said the university also has offered the department a loan of up to $15 million.
∎ Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry recently signed a bill to increase taxes on sports gambling, helping raise more than $20 million to be divided among 11 state universities for athletics, including LSU. Incidentally, LSU athletics is not subject to university cutbacks there because it is considered 'auxiliary' to the university, according to the Louisiana Illuminator in April. LSU didn't respond to a follow-up question about that from USA TODAY Sports.
∎ At the University of Colorado Boulder, the school approved an increase of the student athletic fee from $28.50 to $90 per semester, the first change to this fee since 1994. Funding from it was to support women's sports scholarships and non-revenue sports.
∎ At Virginia Tech, student athletic fees are set to go up by $295 annually, up to $732.
∎ At Wichita State, the university proposed a 3.5% tuition increase, citing the challenging financial landscape for higher education, as well as the House settlement.
∎ At the University of Kansas, Chancellor Douglas Girod told the Lawrence Journal-World that KU athletics possibly could pay the university a reduced tuition rate for its athletes.
∎ Private investment in athletics is on the way. Elevate, a sports strategy and marketing company, recently announced the launch of the Collegiate Investment Initiative to provide colleges with 'capital and strategic resources to develop revenue-generating projects.' What those schools must provide in return for that is not yet clear.
Johnston of NACUBO said 'everything is going to be affected' by federal funding cuts at the top, in addition to the big new cost for athletic departments. New sources of funding are needed in the absence of cutbacks.
'It's not gonna go back to normal,' Johnston said. 'I think we' re in an inflection point.'
Contributing: Steve Berkowitz
Follow reporter Brent Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. Email: bschrotenb@usatoday.com

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

7 minutes ago

• USA Today

Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for health benefits discrimination

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 20 ruled against a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees, a decision that failed to give the same ADA protections to retirees that current employees have. The court ruled that Karyn Stanley can't sue the city of Sanford, Florida, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That upheld a lower court's ruling that the ADA didn't apply to Stanley because she no longer worked for the city when she filed her challenge. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that someone claiming discrimination under the ADA must prove that she held, or wanted, a job that she was able to perform at the time of the alleged discrimination. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination," he wrote. "And the statute tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination." If Congress wants to expand the law to protect retirees like Stanley, it can, he continued. "But the decision whether to do so lies with that body, not this one," he wrote. 'Essential building blocks of the American dream' In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said retirement benefits are 'essential building blocks of the American dream.' 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' she wrote in the dissent that was joined in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 'It is lamentable that this Court so diminishes disability rights that the People (through their elected representatives) established more than three decades ago.' Jackson said Congress could step in 'to fix the mistake the Court has made.' The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect active employees and job applicants from discrimination. It was not intended as a law that extended to employers' relationships with former employees, the business groups and associations representing cities and counties against Stanley's allegations argued. The law covers someone who 'with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.' Stanley's lawyers argued she was employed – and thus covered by the law − when her future benefits were curtailed in 2003. When Stanley became a firefighter in 1999, the city paid for $1,000 of her approximately $1,300 monthly premium for health insurance. Anyone retiring after 25 years of service or because of a disability would continue to receive the benefit until age 65. After Stanley left the department in 2018 at 47 due to Parkinson's disease, she discovered that benefits for disabled retirees were reduced in 2003. The city covered $1,000 of her $1,300 monthly health insurance premium for only two years, after which she was required to pay the whole premium herself. Arguing that the city discriminated against her because of her disability, Stanley sued, asking the city to continue to pay $1,000 of her monthly insurance premium until she turns 65. The city countered that even though Stanley's benefits were reduced, the company treated her better – not worse – than non-disabled employees who retired with less than 25 years of service because those employees get no subsidy while she retained it for two years. The case is Stanley v. City of Stanford.

Los Angeles Times

8 minutes ago

• Los Angeles Times

Judge rules Trump administration can't require states to help on immigration to get transport money

BOSTON — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don't agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions. Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Trump's immigration agenda. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved. 'The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,' wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode island. 'The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.' Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, in a statement posted on Bluesky, welcomed the ruling. 'The court granted a temporary order halting the Trump administration's attempt to hold critical funding for states if they don't comply with their cruel immigration policies,' Campbell said. This would have put critical funding for transportation in MA at risk. It's not just wrong – it's illegal.' In statement posted on X, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said the ruling wasn't surprising. 'I directed states who want federal DOT money to comply with federal immigration laws,' Duffy said. 'But, no surprise, an Obama-appointed judge has ruled that states can openly defy our federal immigration laws. This is judicial activism pure and simple and I will continue to fight in the courts.' On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent. Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called 'Duffy Directive' put them in an impossible position. 'The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants' willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,' the attorneys general wrote in court documents. But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn't cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed. But requiring the federal government to release the money to uncooperative states will likely make it impossible to recoup later, if the Department of Transportation wins the case, Bloom said. Casey and Boone write for the Associated Press.

Politico

12 minutes ago

• Politico

Majority of staff axed at Voice of America

The Trump administration on Friday sent out termination notices to hundreds of employees at Voice of America. Included in that group are employees working for the network's Persian-language service who were called back from administrative leave just last week in the wake of Israel's attack on Iran, according to two people familiar with the decision. The move — which makes official what has long been expected since hundreds of contract employees got termination notices in early May — is a part of the Trump administration's sweeping target to downsize the government and remake America's role in the global order. Critics of the administration's focus on VOA have said that the network has played a vital role in combatting disinformation abroad. But the administration says these cuts are in service of 'cutting waste' and putting 'American taxpayers first.' 'Today, we took decisive action to effectuate President Trump's agenda to shrink the out-of-control federal bureaucracy,' senior presidential adviser Kari Lake said in a statement released Friday . The move eliminates 1,400 jobs at U.S. Agency for Global Media, VOA's parent agency, roughly an 85 percent cut to the workforce. The last day on payroll for the employees will be Labor Day. Some of those affected by Friday's cuts who are not old enough for mandatory retirement, are being terminated without severance pay, according to one of the people. The move would contradict USAGM's policy on severance. 'As our legal team fight[s] for our rights under the law, we call on Congress to continue its long tradition of bipartisan support for VOA,' the named plaintiffs in VOA's lawsuit against the Trump administration said in a statement. 'Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and extremist groups are flooding the global information space with anti-American propaganda. Do not cede this ground by silencing America's voice.' Lake said in her statement that 250 employees will remain across the USAGM, VOA and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting. She noted that none of the OCB's 33 employees were terminated. The government-funded network, which was founded 80 years ago to combat Nazi disinformation during World War II, has — largely unsuccessfully — fought the administration's decision in court. The administration sent RIF notices to employees in small batches for weeks. But Friday's notice could deliver the coup de grâce for Voice of America after decades of providing the world with accurate information in countries where media is state-run.