Americans split on pivotal issues reshaping college sports

As NCAA Division I college athletics undergoes a historic transformation, a new national survey of 1,500 U.S. adults reveals a divided and often uncertain public about the path forward, with significant splits on issues like compensation for college athletes, athletes’ potential status as employees, and who should govern the multi-billion-dollar enterprise. Yet despite these differences, Americans overwhelmingly support maintaining academic standards for college athletes, and they agree that colleges should provide equitable opportunities to female athletes and opportunities for athletes in sports other than those tied to generating revenue (like football and basketball).

These survey results suggest that, in a number of core areas, the American public continues to support a model of college athletics strongly linked to the education and development missions of colleges and universities. In other areas, there were a high number of “unsure” responses, unsurprising in a time of great change and uncertainty in college sports.

The survey by Elon University Poll and the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics was conducted July 7-11, 2025, a month after a landmark legal settlement that permits Division I athletics programs, for the first time, to share revenue with athletes and compensate them for the value of their names, images and likenesses (NIL). The $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, approved June 6 by U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, ended several class action lawsuits filed against the NCAA and the five prominent athletic conferences that generate the most revenues.

Background on shifting landscape

This new, post-settlement environment for Division I athletics programs raises legal and operational issues, including whether college athletes should be classified as employees and whether Division I athletics should be regulated by uniform, national standards or by the current patchwork of often conflicting state laws.

At the federal level, Division I athletics is drawing unprecedented attention in Congress and in the Trump administration. The proposed SCORE Act, which aims to codify that college athletes are not employees and to create federal standards on college athletes’ NIL deals, recently passed in two committees of the U.S. House of Representatives before its 2025 summer recess. Then on July 24, a day after the House recessed, President Donald Trump issued the “Saving College Sports” executive order, directing the development of new federal policies related to college sports. This survey was conducted prior to the issuance of that executive order and to the committee votes on the SCORE Act.

No public consensus on college sports governance and the role of federal and state governments

The Elon/Knight Commission survey found no public consensus on the organization or entity that should be primarily responsible for regulating the business of college sports. The NCAA remains the top choice, but with only 35% support. The next most popular option was “governing bodies that regulate specific sports” (25%), followed by athletics conferences (10%), state governments (9%) and the federal government (6%). Fifteen percent (15%) chose none of these.

Similarly, most Americans are either skeptical or unsure that Congress should enact legislation to regulate college sports. Only 36% supported the creation of federal legislation to supersede state laws and to allow the NCAA to enact uniform, nationwide rules, while 26% were opposed and 39% were unsure. However, support for new federal legislation was much higher among those respondents who identified as being interested in college sports, with 54% favoring national laws compared with 24% who opposed such legislation.

Overwhelming support for maintaining academic emphasis

Despite divisions over many issues in college sports, Americans showed overwhelming consensus on maintaining academic standards for college athletes. This educational emphasis crossed all demographic and interest groups:

• 81% said it was extremely or very important for college athletes to be enrolled as full-time students taking classes at their institution
  • At least 85% of college sports fans and “former college athletes and their families” agreed
• 81% viewed athlete graduation as extremely or very important
• 74% strongly supported the existing rule requiring teams to be on track to graduate at least half their athletes to remain eligible for postseason competition

Mixed views on athletes’ employment status and compensation

Most Americans do not support classifying Division I athletes as employees of their schools, although support is higher among respondents who identified as “former college athletes and their families.” Even for revenue-producing sports (like football and basketball), 36% of Americans opposed classifying athletes as employees compared with 30% who supported employee classification. Public opposition to classifying all college athletes as employees, regardless of revenue generation, was higher (43%), with only a fifth of the public (21%) saying that athletes in all sports should be classified as employees.

Respondents with more personal experience with college athletics were more likely to support employee status for Division I athletes in revenue sports. Those who identified as “former college athletes and their families” supported the employment arrangement for revenue sports by a 7% margin, with 41% in support and 34% opposed.

The American public is much more receptive to universities negotiating with athletes on pay, rights and responsibilities, much in the way that professional sports leagues do with players’ unions. Overall, 41% of Americans supported athlete negotiations with their schools, compared with 30% who opposed that idea. Among those interested in college sports, 52% favored player negotiations. Support for player negotiations was similar for former college athletes and their families and college football fans, with 50% holding that view, and higher among college basketball fans, with 57% expressing support.

With universities now allowed to provide direct NIL compensation and other financial payments to individual athletes, in addition to athletics scholarships, Americans were asked about their views on the appropriate compensation limits, if any, for these direct university payments. Responses varied widely. While 24% believed an athlete should receive nothing beyond an athletics scholarship, a plurality of Americans (45%) supported the idea of athletes receiving at least some compensation beyond their athletics scholarships:

• 15% supported athlete compensation limit up to $100,000
• 13% supported athlete compensation limit up to $25,000
• 11% supported no limits on athlete compensation
• 4% supported athlete compensation limit up to $500,000
• 2% supported athlete compensation limit up to $1 million

[Note: Current rules under the new settlement terms do not have team or individual limits, only an institutional cap for such athlete compensation that includes athletes in all sports.]

Americans had definite opinions about the funding sources for this new athlete compensation from universities. They favored raising money from private and corporate support and media contracts and there was little support for increasing student tuition and fees and dropping non-revenue sports. More specifically:

• 71% favored greater fundraising and private and corporate support
• 56% favored expanded sports media and branding rights
• 35% favored increased ticket prices
• 30% favored reductions in coach and athletics staff salaries
• 29% favored more government funding
• 26% favored reallocating funds from a university’s general operating budget
• 20% favored dropping some sports
• 10% favored increased student tuition and fees

Americans show strong support for collegiate Olympic sports

With Division I college athletics funding stretched by pressure to compete and fund new athlete compensation in revenue-producing sports, schools are reconsidering the extent of their support for sports that do not generate significant revenue – generally referred to as collegiate Olympic sports. Over the past 10 months, some Division I schools have announced dropping teams or reducing funding in these sports as adjustments are made in the new financial environment.

Nearly 7 in 10 Americans (68%) said it is important for universities to offer opportunities for students to participate in varsity sports other than those that are tied to generating revenues, like football and basketball. Among those interested in college sports, the support for these opportunities was even higher, with more than 9 in 10 respondents (93%) saying these varsity sports opportunities beyond football and basketball are important.

The survey also found wide support for Team USA, with 76% of Americans saying it is moderately to extremely important that Team USA is successful in the Olympics. Among those interested in college sports, 92% said that college programs such as gymnastics, track & field, swimming, and hockey are important to the success of Team USA in the Summer and Winter Olympic Games.

Openness to federal funding for collegiate Olympic sports

While Americans strongly support the importance of Team USA’s success in the Olympics, there is a lack of knowledge about the funding that fuels the development of U.S. Olympians. More than 8 in 10 Americans (81%) erroneously thought that the U.S. government provides funding for Team USA development programs (it does not).

Overall, nearly half (46%) of American adults favored using federal funds to help finance college sports programs to develop USA Olympic national team members and two-thirds (65%) of those interested in college sports supported that idea. A majority of Americans also supported enacting a fee or federal tax on sports gambling operators to create a national fund to support collegiate Olympic sports, with 53% of Americans supporting that idea, compared with 22% who opposed such a fee.

Providing equitable opportunities for female athletes needs more work

Title IX is a relevant law for schools to consider when providing additional financial assistance to athletes through NIL payments and permissible revenue-sharing.

Title IX requires schools to provide female and male athletes with equitable opportunities to participate and equitable financial assistance and treatment. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans believe that schools have “not gone far enough” in providing female athletes with equitable opportunities compared with 27% who said the schools have “been about right” in providing equitable opportunities. More than a quarter (27%) of respondents were “unsure” but only 7% said schools have “gone too far” in providing equitable opportunities to females. Women (45%) were more likely than men (33%) to say that schools have “not gone far enough” in providing equitable opportunities to female athletes.

Mixed reactions to seismic shifts taking place

When asked about the collective impact of recent changes in Division I, including the transfer portal, name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation, and conference realignments, Americans were divided and uncertain in their assessments. Overall, 28% viewed these changes positively, while 22% saw them as negative. But the predominant response from the public was that half of Americans (50%) considered the impact neither positive nor negative or were unsure about the impact.

Those who said they are interested in college sports had more decisive opinions about the major changes taking place, with 41% saying the impacts are positive and 35% saying the impacts are negative.

Americans were equally divided about the new transfer rules that allow Division I college athletes to move between schools as often as they choose, without penalty. Overall, 38% of Americans opposed the new transfer policy, compared with 36% who supported it. Among those interested in college sports, 49% supported the transfer rules and 43% opposed them.

Majority support for college coach credentialing

Another area of broad support was requiring college sport coaches to have a “coach credential” that certifies their knowledge and training in athlete development, mental and physical health and safety, with more than 7 in 10 (74%) Americans supporting such a credential with only 6% opposed. Support for a “coach credential” was even stronger (80%) among former college athletes and their families. College coaches are currently not required to earn such a credential.

Confusion about College Football Playoff and football governance

Survey findings revealed that the public lacks a fundamental understanding about the independent business structure of the College Football Playoff (CFP), which operates the FBS football national championship independent of the NCAA. When asked how much money the NCAA receives annually from the CFP, only 3% of the respondents selected the correct answer of $0. More than half (54%) selected options from $20 million to $1 billion, and 43% of the public said they were unsure.

A majority of Americans (52%) were unsure about creating a new FBS football governing body that would operate separately from the NCAA, while the other views were nearly split with 26% supporting the idea and 22% opposing it. College football fans were much more favorable to a new football governing body with 39% supporting, while 36% were unsure and 25% opposed the idea.

Level of interest in college sports

The survey documents the level of interest in the sports landscape in the United States. Among all respondents, 68% expressed at least some interest in professional sports, compared with 67% who said they had some interest in the Summer and Winter Olympics, 54% who had some interest in other competitive sports, and 52% who said they had at least some interest in college sports. Among those who said they were very or moderately interested in college sports, 92% said they were football fans, 74% said they were basketball fans, and 47% said they were women’s basketball fans. Other college sports mentioned in order of frequency were: baseball, soccer, track & field, gymnastics, softball, hockey, tennis, volleyball, swimming, lacrosse, wrestling, and golf.

Other topics covered in the survey included the benefits of college sports, athlete health and safety, and sports gambling. All findings and breakdown of differences among demographic and select interest groups can be found in the survey topline and full methodology.

Survey Methodology

Access the survey topline and methodology at: bit.ly/collegesportspoll. The survey was developed by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and the Elon University Poll. It was fielded by the international marketing and polling firm YouGov, an online, web-based survey, self-administered with online panels. Between July 7 and July 11, YouGov interviewed 1,671 U.S. adults aged 18 and older. These respondents were then matched down to a sample of 1,500 to produce the final dataset. The margin of error for this poll (adjusted for weights) is +/-2.87%.