Within the SEC, opinions vary on potential revenue sharing

NASHVILLE – While the current era of college athletics has largely been defined by athletes’ newfound NIL rights, the next era that’s on the horizon could be defined by increased, direct compensation from schools to athletes. It could take the form of either revenue sharing or employment status.

At SEC Football Media Days last week, numerous players spoke willingly and confidently about the potential benefits of revenue sharing, while SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey highlighted his concerns with the suggestion. A couple of prominent head coaches fell somewhere in the middle, either unwilling to talk about it in depth or exploring the game theory of what revenue sharing would mean for the future of NIL deals.

Nine of the 10 players On3 asked about potential revenue sharing in the future clearly supported the possibility. The 10th player offered skepticism about NIL deals and the future of college football, but he still supported players earning compensation.

“That’s awesome. The players, we work extremely hard,” said Missouri defensive lineman Darius Robinson, when asked about the possibility. “You know, this is a business. It’s a lot of money. And at the end of the day, the powers are the product and we are the product. So any way that we can help the players, we got to find ways to do that.”

However, Sankey hasn’t seriously entertained the subject publicly, citing Title IX concerns and the potential impact on the country’s Olympic talent pipeline.

Georgia football coach Kirby Smart said he doesn’t have expertise on the subject.

Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin said revenue sharing sounds great, as players could earn a portion of the revenue they help generate. Yet, he’s not convinced it would prevent boosters from paying players in ways they do now, which he said wouldn’t establish the competitive landscape some think it might.

Greg Sankey speaks out against revenue sharing

During Sankey’s opening statement to the media on Monday, he only tangentially touched on revenue sharing.

“Efforts like those that have happened in California mandating revenue create new threats around the support of Olympic and women’s sports,” Sankey said, in reference to California Assembly Bill 252, a bill that’s on hold until 2024 but could implement revenue sharing through degree completion funds.

Sankey then expanded on the topic of revenue sharing again when he joined On3’s J.D. PicKell‘s live show at SEC Football Media Days.

“I understand the question,” Sankey said at the end of his wide-ranging response. “I understand the motivation for some in California. I just think it’s been a really incomplete dialogue on realities that actually are the assets, the benefits currently present now in college sports that would be significantly affected if we went down that road.”

In quick succession during Sankey’s opening statement last Monday, he said three times that high school and college athletes “deserve something better” than “a patchwork of state laws,” as well as “a race to the bottom at the state legislature level,” and “to need to sort through a fully unregulated marketplace.”

SEC football players’ responses suggest revenue sharing could represent something better.

“I haven’t heard much or seen much on that but that would be cool, I guess, for the athletes,” said Georgia tight end Brock Bowers.

Kirby Smart: ‘I’m not an expert on revenue sharing’

On3 asked Smart, who has coached the last two national champions, about his perspective on revenue sharing. The Georgia-focused Classic City Collective is one of seven NIL collectives that formed The Collective Association. The TCA is working to propose a plan that includes revenue sharing that doesn’t involve athletes becoming employees of their institutions.

“I’m not an expert on revenue sharing,” Smart said. “I do know that our Classic City Collective has been on the cutting edge of sharing information, trying to get best practices, trying to find a better way.

“I’ve been a big proponent of like why can’t – just like we talk across different programs to figure out the best way to run a defense or do an offensive play or study – like let’s figure out the best practices of this so that we can get some uniformity among ’em and try to grow it that way.”

Smart then reiterated, “I’m not an expert on revenue sharing or the way it would be set up.”

The SEC and The Collective Association made initial contact after the latter’s launch with a more in-depth conversation to come.

“I have read with interest this formation of a collective association, or a collective collective, I guess. A collection of collectives,” Sankey said.

If TCA or the members of the California State Assembly are able to influence decision-making in board rooms or at the state capitol, or even in public opinion, then future conversations could feature revenue sharing even more prominently.

Kiffin: ‘Revenue sharing, on the surface, would be great’

On3 asked Lane Kiffin about revenue sharing. He said like many topics regarding athlete compensation “there’s good and bad.”

The Grove Collective, an Ole Miss-focused collective, is one of those involved in formulating a potential revenue-sharing plan. Kiffin’s roster has benefited from The Grove Collective, which re-signed 2022 SEC Freshman of the Year Quinshon Judkins for the 2023-24 season just days after the regular season ended.

“I think that revenue sharing, on the surface, would be great because players are getting paid and it’s coming from the money they’re helping make the university,” Kiffin said. “But again, I kind of try to think things through and the other things that happen when you do something. Like when everybody was like, ‘Oh, we got this NIL. It’s great. And this portal. It’s great.’ Ah, woah. And I’m not saying I was the only one saying it like, ‘Woah, this is a disaster coming because you just legalized cheating and you just told donors they can pay the players is what you did.'”

Kiffin acknowledged he has said in the past that football players should be employees of universities so they could potentially sign multiyear contracts. He said the motivation behind many NIL agreements isn’t a player’s marketability.

“Really it’s for your name, image, likeness for your marketing,” he said. “Again, that’s not what happened. That’s not what’s happening. They’re getting paid to go to school. So it’s pay-for-play. So the revenue sharing sounds really good but then they’re like, ‘Ok, well we’re going to revenue share and then that’s all they get.'”

Kiffin raised a fair question about whether revenue sharing would really eliminate the want or need for boosters to pay players. There’s currently not a players’ union or association that bargains with the NCAA or conferences to establish a compensation model or regulations.

“I said, ‘Well, Ok, well wait. But then they’re still going to have NIL,’ which really isn’t NIL for probably 99% of the kids,” Kiffin said. “They’re not really getting the money for their marketing rights so then revenue sharing – but you’re still going to have this. So they say, ‘Well, revenue sharing would make an equal playing field,’ which is what the NCAA always wants to do. Make things equal playing field. Well, obviously with what we described with no salary cap and everybody operating off their different budgets, that’s not anywhere close.

“So, I don’t know that that fixes it. It sounds good but then you’re still going to have ‘Here’s your revenue-sharing pot and everybody’s the same.’ But then here you’re still going to have all this other money that donors can go give players or the way it is now. In some states, the school just funnels the money to the players.”

Football players explain support for revenue sharing

When On3 asked SEC football players about a potential revenue-sharing model, several players referenced the largesse of the revenue they help generate for their schools and conference.

“I think it could be good, maybe could be interesting,” Vanderbilt linebacker Ethan Barr said. “I think the players are obviously bringing in a lot of revenue to the leagues and things like that so I think it could be cool.”

His teammate, Vanderbilt wide receiver Will Sheppard said something similar while weighing the benefits of the NIL era with the commitment and risks for players.

“I personally think it’s a great thing,” Sheppard said. “You know, NIL becoming a thing, what it is. I feel like players at the end of the day are making the money for the schools. We are the ones that are on the field putting in the work, putting our bodies on the line so I think it’s a great thing.”

Only Texas A&M defensive lineman McKinnely Jackson expressed doubt over potential revenue sharing, but seemingly in the context of NIL. He then supported players earning compensation.

“I’m not the biggest fan of NIL at all cause of just the way the game is going to be transferred, what it’s going to be in the future,” Jackson said. “But I’m all in for players getting paid, especially if they are producing for the school.”

Jackson’s teammate, wide receiver Ainias Smith, cited the potential ramifications of the pursuit of NIL deals when answering why the Aggies have fallen short of their potential recently.

Administrators have expressed concerns about the impact of potential revenue sharing or employment status on the future of college athletics or individual sports, but LSU running back Josh Williams said he thinks revenue sharing would be productive for his sport.

“I think,” Williams said, “that’s positive for college football.”