Updating the playbook: Paying the athletes

by

This is part 2 of a 2-part series examining the rapidly changing landscape of college sports. Read Part 1, The New Playbook here.

For Christopher Vizzina, the college football dream started early — and required an early maturity to match.

The former Briarwood Christian School quarterback was a nationally sought-after recruit with more than 30 offers, making cross-country visits to some of the nation’s top programs. He ultimately chose Clemson, a decision rooted not just in prestige, but in identity.

“I committed to Clemson because it fit who I was as a person and as a player,” Vizzina said. “Coach [Dabo] Swinney is an elite recruiter as well as an elite coach. He recruited me very hard.”

Those are quotes not commonly heard in today’s college landscape, which has become overshadowed by free-flowing transfers and NIL payments. Players like Vizzina are a breath of fresh air, not the norm.

He also bucks the trend when it comes to embracing progress and stability. He’s happy at Clemson and is biding his time, improving each day and staying focused on long-term growth in a college sports world where instant results are often the norm.

“My story is going to be different than some people,” he said. “I’ve decided to develop. But I’m very excited for the future. I think that it will pay off very soon.”

Vizzina has experienced the highs of national rankings and major offers — and the pressure that comes with them. He’s navigated the rise of NIL and seen the transfer portal reshape his sport. Through it all, he’s stayed grounded in his values and the big picture.

THE GAME JUST CHANGED

If you played Division I college sports in the last decade — or your kid did — this summer, money’s coming.

Not from boosters. Not from collectives. From the university itself.

On June 14, a federal judge finalized House v. NCAA, a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that shatters the 119-year model of amateurism. For the first time, schools can pay their athletes directly — not for appearances, not through shell groups — but straight from university revenue.

If you are a fan of college sports, the games are now unlike anything you’ve known.

And it starts now.

WHO GETS PAID – AND HOW

SIDEBAR: House vs. NCAA Settlement Explained

The House settlement triggers two historic changes:

Backpay: Any Division I athlete who competed between 2016 and 2024 can file for compensation. Payouts will depend on sport, tenure and school revenue — with football and men’s basketball expected to receive the largest shares.

Revenue sharing: Starting this fall, schools can pay current athletes up to $20.5 million annually. The cap will rise each year over the 10-year agreement. Most schools are expected to split it like this:

  • 75% to football
  • 15% to men’s basketball
  • 5% to women’s basketball
  • 5% to all other sports

This is not NIL 2.0. This is something else entirely.

NIL was always about outside money — sponsors, side hustles, booster funds. The House settlement puts the money on campus. Schools will now pay athletes from the same pool used for coach salaries, facilities and scholarships.

That makes it bigger. And messier.

Only the Power 4 conferences — SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 — were named in the suit. But all Division I schools must contribute to the backpay fund, even if they’ve never had a single NIL deal. Many smaller schools are already trimming rosters, adjusting scholarships and revisiting budgets. Some athletes will get paid. Others may get cut.

‘TRANSFORMATIVE LEGISLATION’

Birmingham entrepreneur and athlete advocate Jim Cavale has been tracking this shift from the beginning.

“In just the first year — from July 2021 to July 2022 — we tracked $350 million in NIL activity,” Cavale said. “And 90% of that was donor-driven funds funneled through collectives to pay athletes to play.”

Now, he says, things are even murkier.

“The biggest issue athletes face is confusing and misleading contracts,” Cavale said. “These so-called NIL deals are often performance-based agreements in disguise.”

ESPN national analyst Tom Luginbill sees the same storm building.

“This is the most transformative legislation in college sports in the last 15 years, and it dropped with no guardrails,” he said. “(Resource-rich) programs like Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia can do whatever they want. Most others can’t.”

And he’s worried.

“What’s coming is this: players getting paid big money, surrounded by bad actors. Agents want 20–30%. A kid enters the portal, takes bad advice, spends the money — and doesn’t go pro. That’s the reality.”

NEXT: CONGRESS AND COURTS

Just days after the House ruling, a bipartisan group in Congress introduced the SCORE Act — a bill that would:

  • Cap revenue sharing and standardize disclosures
  • Pre-empt state NIL laws
  • Create a federal enforcement commission
  • Affirm that college athletes are not employees

That last point might be the whole game.

The NCAA’s biggest fear isn’t payment; it’s employment. If athletes are ruled to be employees, everything changes: benefits, unions, workers’ comp, labor law. The House deal opened the door to paychecks. Congress is now trying to close it before anyone says the E-word.

But Cavale says the conversation still leaves out the people it claims to protect.

“These are being structured as NIL, not employment — and there’s still no agent regulation, no contract standards,” he said. “The athlete’s voice is missing. What’s really needed is collective bargaining.”

Meanwhile, legal uncertainty continues. The House settlement is not the final word — and may not withstand future challenges.

In June, eight current and former female athletes filed a Title IX lawsuit challenging the revenue-sharing model, arguing that its disproportionate distribution to men’s sports violates federal gender equity laws. More suits are likely. Title IX, employment law and due process could all play a role in shaping — or unraveling — the current plan.

NCAA leaders say that’s why congressional intervention is critical. The proposed SCORE Act would codify House into law, protect it from further litigation and preempt conflicting state-level NIL rules. But despite years of lobbying, no federal college sports law has ever passed. For now, the policy landscape remains a moving target.

WELCOME TO NIL GO

On June 17, a new layer of regulation arrived: NIL Go — a clearinghouse overseen by the Collegiate Sports Commission and run by Deloitte.

Athletes must now report any deal over $600. Each gets reviewed for “fair market value.” If Deloitte flags it as inflated, it can be denied or sent to arbitration. There is no legal standard for that value. No consistent appeal process. Just a new filter between athletes and the opportunities they chase.

And that’s happening as university-issued paychecks are set to hit.

The result? Confusion, whiplash — and change.

Athletes like Vizzina are currently weathering NIL, the transfer portal and scholarship uncertainty. Now they face something even stranger: a paycheck from the school they play for.

What that means — and how long it lasts — is still in question.

The checks start July 1.

The system? Still up for grabs.

But Vizzina hopes other athletes keep the bigger picture in mind, and not just the instant gratification that comes with payments and transfers.

“I would say just stay true to who you are and go somewhere that values the type of person you are and player,” he said. “Don’t go somewhere where they tell you everything you want to hear. Go somewhere where you can become a man and become the football player you want to be.”