Should colleges pay their athletes? Here’s what Utahns think

College football teams in Utah opened training camp this week with coaches, conditioning, playbooks, film sessions, equipment and everything else needed to help players compete at the highest level.

But this season schools have something else to help make them successful: a payroll.

For the first time ever, universities can directly pay their athletes. The recent House v. NCAA settlement provided a revenue-sharing plan that allows schools to distribute up to 22% of the average athletic department’s income to players in all sports. That comes to about $20.5 million for the 2025-26 season.

Athletic directors at Utah universities have not divulged how the revenue-sharing payments will be divvied up, but most schools around the country see the lion’s share going to football and men’s basketball — the two main revenue-generating sports.

What Utahns think about paying college athletes

A new Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll asked Utahns how they feel about the House decision.

The survey found 51% of adults in the state agree with the court ruling that allows schools to pay players, while 33% do not agree. Another 15% don’t know.

More than half of poll respondents in nearly every demographic category agree with the House settlement, with some exceptions that include women, Utahns 50 and older, those making less than $50,000 a year and the unemployed.

HarrisX conducted the poll of 840 Utah adults July 9-16. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

Kim Dority, a 61-year-old Smithfield resident who cheers for Utah State as well as BYU and Utah, disagrees with the House decision.

“I disagree only because some schools are going to be able to pay more than others, so the balance will be out of whack, won’t it?” he said. “I don’t like that. I think there ought to be some sort of salary cap or something, at least one that everyone can kind of meet reasonably.”

Utah, BYU in the House

While schools have not revealed how or if the revenue will be shared among players in all sports, the University of Utah intends to distribute the maximum allowed under the antitrust agreement.

“We are all-in on wherever the settlement falls. We certainly have a straw man of what it’s going to look like, but until it’s ratified … but we’re all-in, we’ve been preparing for that. We’re blessed to have an incredible fan base, donors, corporate program. We’ll get there and we plan on carrying our sports,” Utah athletic director Mark Harlansaid earlier this month at Big 12 media days in Las Vegas.

Utah athletics carried a $1.8 million surplus this past year, but has a ways to go to reach the maximum $20.5 million revenue-sharing figure, though Harlan said in January that the school had “the best year-end fundraising drive in the history of the department.”

BYU has also committed to participate in sharing nearly the full $20.5 million in revenue with its athletes under the House settlement. It will receive a full share of Big 12 revenue this year, adding $13 million to its budget.

“We’re going to use new Big 12 revenues,” Keith Vorkink, BYU advancement vice president, told the Deseret News this month. “One of the benefits of not being a full-share Big 12 school is that we’ve been operating on a budget that anticipates less than a full share. So going into a full share now really helps us because that is money we had not already earmarked to something else.”

Are direct athlete payments public records?

Utah lawmakers were all-in on directly paying college athletes for the use of their name, image and likeness regardless of whether the House settlement was approved.

The Legislature overwhelmingly approved and the governor signed a bill in March allowing schools in the state to compensate their athletes directly. The law also states that college athletes are not university employees.

Legislators said the measure is intended to keep Utah universities competitive with schools across the country and ensure they don’t fall behind because the state’s laws are not up to date.

One of the questions that arises under this revolutionary change in college sports is around transparency.

The original version of the bill made direct payments to athletes public records subject to Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act, or GRAMA, but the sponsor removed that provision before it passed. It does not preclude anyone from requesting the records, though schools have made it clear they believe NIL payments are private and fought attempts to disclose them.

The Utah law does call for an audit evaluating the money universities spend on compensating athletes for the use of their NIL every five years, starting in 2028.

Jeff Hunt, a lawyer for the Utah Media Coalition, has argued that athletes payments should be treated like other university disbursements that are a matter of public record.

College sports executive order

In addition to creating a revenue-sharing model, the House settlement imposed new scholarship rules and roster limits, and resolved multiple antitrust lawsuits with a $2.8 billion payout to athletes who couldn’t access NIL opportunities in the past due to the timing of their college careers. Athletes were allowed to profit from the use of their name, image and likeness starting in 2021.

Some universities say the settlement will force them to cut or drop non-revenue sports.

Last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to “preserve” college sports and “provide the stability, fairness and balance necessary to protect student-athletes, collegiate athletic scholarships and opportunities ... It is common sense that college sports are not, and should not be, professional sports, and my administration will take action accordingly.”

The order mandates college athletics departments take measures to expand or maintain scholarship opportunities and roster spots next season based on their 2024-25 revenue, with more required of schools that have bigger budgets.