NIL has led to many unintended consequences in the athletics landscape. European developmental basketball programs are facing financial strain as players prioritize NCAA hoops over the European club system; the second round of the NBA draft has become drained of talent as high-level college players find NIL pay-for-play contracts more attractive than two-way G league payment; but, the most damning challenge of them all, is the peril many Olympic sports programs in the NCAA are currently facing. 

Unlike most leading nations, the United States does not federally subsidize Olympic sports; instead, it relies almost entirely on private funding and collegiate programs to develop athletes for international competition. This unique reliance on the NCAA and private donors has yet to hold America back on the Olympic stage. However, as college athletics undergo unprecedented financial strain — due to legal shifts stemming from the House v. NCAA case and the rising costs of compensating college athletes — the American collegiate athletics system’s ability to subsidize Olympic sports is at serious risk. 

Approximately $5,000,000,000 is currently spent on NCAA Olympic sports. Due to a lack of public interest in these sports at the collegiate levels, these programs virtually always operate at a significant financial loss. At large schools, the funding for these activities is subsidized by revenue-generating sports, typically football and basketball. Smaller schools that do not generate massive revenue through their highly visible sports’ lucrative media rights contracts and ticket sales more heavily rely upon donations from alumni to 501(c)3 university athletic funds to fund Olympic programs.

With shifting budgeting considerations stemming from NIL reform, the survival of non-revenue collegiate sports like swimming, wrestling, and gymnastics has never been more in jeopardy. The House v. NCAA case has added a new dimension to college sports funding. As part of its preliminarily approved settlement, the NCAA would permit Division I universities to create annual payrolls of up to $22,000,000 for athlete compensation, primarily directed to athletes in revenue-generating sports. 

With these new payroll costs, colleges are pressured to create new revenue streams and shift funding away from non-revenue sports to cover expenses for the newly established payrolls. While it is equitable that the athletes who have been the driver of immense profits in college sports will finally be cut in on athletic revenues, the shifting budgeting dynamics effectively remove many of the subsidies created for Olympic development.

The financial reshuffling prompted by House means that sports like swimming, track and field, wrestling, and rowing — where the U.S. has traditionally excelled on the Olympic stage — are at risk of budget cuts or elimination. This isn’t just a hypothetical; we are already seeing programs across the country downsized or eliminated as universities struggle to accommodate these new financial pressures. Just this year, Loyola Marymount cut six Olympic programs: Men’s cross-country, Men’s rowing, Men’s track and field, Women’s rowing, Women’s swimming, and Women’s track and field, eliminating 115 roster spots. 

These cuts pose a severe threat to Team USA’s talent development pipeline. College athletics has long been the backbone of American Olympic success. According to the USOPC, this summer in Paris, 75% of U.S. Olympians had competed collegiately, 169 schools from 45 different conferences were represented, twenty-one teams had at least 80% collegiate participation on their rosters, and 15 rosters included 100% representation of collegiate athletes. 

The cost of maintaining America’s Olympic pipeline through the NCAA is a minuscule fraction of federal spending: less than 0.3% of the annual U.S. defense budget. This figure raises an essential question: Should the U.S. government step in to fund Olympic sports? Federal funding could sustain this vital pipeline while allowing America to remain a global sports leader, particularly as foreign nations continue increasing their Olympic investments. 

Utilizing the defense budget is not an unprecedented idea. Russia and Pakistan have previously included Olympic development programs in their defense budgets. Olympic prominence fosters national pride and unity, projecting an image of strength and resilience that resonates domestically and internationally. 

This visibility can enhance America’s soft power, showcasing its values and capabilities on the global stage, which is vital for maintaining influence in an increasingly competitive world. The success of U.S. athletes can inspire future generations, creating a healthier, more capable workforce that aligns with military objectives. Olympic sports are not only about a medal count but also about bolstering national security, fostering patriotism, and demonstrating the nation’s commitment to excellence.

If the U.S. government were to fully subsidize Olympic sports, the required funding would represent only a tiny fraction of the defense budget. In 2024, the U.S. defense budget will be $1,940,000,000,000. The NCAA’s Olympic sports spending of $5,000,000,000 represents roughly 0.26% of this amount. This minimal allocation for Olympic sports would be a financially modest yet strategically powerful investment. It would allow America to maintain the strategic advantages of its Olympic standing without approaching the statist model seen in other nations.

Our allies have successfully used a similar model. The United Kingdom, for example, allocates £86,000,000 (about $105,000,000) to Olympic sports—roughly 0.16% of its £54,000,000,000 defense budget. Western nations beyond the U.S. view Olympic funding as a valuable investment. Canada and Australia similarly support Olympic sports through federal funding, ensuring their athletes can develop without relying solely on private contributions or collegiate systems.

While effective, China’s approach to Olympic sports is fundamentally different from this proposal. In China, Olympic sports are state-controlled and centrally managed. The government actively scouts young athletes and places them into state-run sports academies, where their lives are tailored to maximize their athletic potential. This centrally funded model serves a dual purpose: it fuels national pride through Olympic victories while showcasing China’s perceived power and discipline on the global stage.

The U.S. does not need to adopt this authoritarian approach. Federal subsidies for Olympic sports would not direct athlete training or impose government oversight. Rather, they would provide a financial foundation that preserves college programs and community-based development, empowering athletes and institutions to pursue excellence on their own terms.

It is worth noting that over 10% of international Olympic athletes train in the United States, primarily through NCAA programs. The NCAA has become a global training hub due to its state-of-the-art facilities, high-quality coaching, and competitive environment. With taxpayer dollars going into this investment, it would be reasonable to establish a more protectionist model for collegiate sports. To maintain an Olympic advantage, federal funding would likely be diverted to the development of U.S. athletes –– admittedly, this system would potentially remove opportunity from international athletes within the NCAA ranks. 

The U.S. Olympic pipeline is at serious risk, with NCAA programs under financial strain. A federal subsidy would ensure that Olympic athletes continue to receive the support they need without sacrificing the decentralization that has always defined the U.S. approach to talent development. In addition, it would allow revenue sports to properly allocate resources and payments to their revenue athletes without subsidizing non-revenue athletes, removing the burden placed on athletic departments in a more professionalized model. 

The rapid changes in the collegiate sports economic model brought about by the House v. NCAA case highlight a long-overdue need to rethink Olympic sports funding. As universities face mounting costs for athlete payrolls, the U.S. cannot afford to let its Olympic pipeline weaken. This isn’t a call for sweeping government control but for targeted, strategic investment that keeps America’s tried-and-true talent pipeline intact.

Olympic success remains a defining aspect of American identity, inspiring generations and fostering national pride. By adopting a federal subsidy model similar to that of our Western allies, we can ensure that America remains a leader on the Olympic stage without abandoning the values of independence and competitiveness that have defined Team USA.