A watershed settlement that paves the way for US colleges to pay student-athletes directly represents a ¡°tipping point¡± for higher education, with potential ¡°ripple effects¡± throughout academia, experts have warned.

The long-awaited ruling in the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA)?dispute will see colleges pay $2.8 billion (?2.1 million) in back payments to athletes over the next 10 years.

Ivy League universities have opted out of the revenue-sharing agreement?but Power 4 and other Division I institutions will begin directly paying student-athletes up to $20.5 million per year from 1 July.

Amy Bass, professor of sport studies at Manhattanville University, told 51³Ô¹Ï that the sector was ¡°entering a new era¡± ¨C with the ¡°myth of amateurism¡± finally over for colleges with top sport teams.

51³Ô¹Ï

¡°This means that institutions may have to redefine relationships with students, at least legally and of course financially, and reconsider budget and cost of elite programs because of the new economic systems that will engulf them.¡±

Thilo Kunkel, professor of sport, tourism and hospitality management at Temple University, said the settlement formalises a gradual shift?in powerhouse athletic programmes.

51³Ô¹Ï

The deal will allow those with strong TV deals to increasingly recruit the best athletes, and position themselves ¡°in the spotlight of college sport media¡±, he said.

¡°The settlement represents a tipping point in US higher education and the NCAA sport system. It forces institutions to confront long-standing tensions between commercial athletics and academic values ¨C and clearly outline how athletics fit in the strategy of the organisation.

¡°There will likely be more legal challenges, mostly evolving around employment debates, and perhaps a rethinking of what it means to be a student-athlete.¡±

Kunkel also warned of the potential for academic budgets to feel the ¡°ripple effects¡±. ¡°Even though athlete compensation is supposed to come from athletic revenue, in practice, cross-subsidisation happens. Universities with tight budgets and sporting ambition may reallocate funds and use student tuition to pay athletes.¡±

The revenue-sharing agreement, which saves the NCAA from bankruptcy, leaves many universities with a decision to make.

¡°It begs the question at schools as to whether they want to participate at the highest level of college sports or not, because without the revenue-sharing, the athletes, if good enough, will transfer to schools offering the greater amount of money,¡± said William Berry, professor of law at the University of Mississippi.

¡°Higher ed is moving toward a world in which institutions become managers of minor league sports teams,¡± he added.

While those at the top face ¡°more turbulence¡±, Michael LeRoy, professor of labour and employment relations at the University of Illinois, said there were more serious impacts on the rest of the pack.

51³Ô¹Ï

Already fighting a ¡°losing battle¡± under the old model, less?prestigious colleges will now miss out on all the top athletes and be forced to reduce team sizes or cut sports altogether, he said.

51³Ô¹Ï

The vast majority of the $2.8 billion in damages will go towards male American football and basketball players ¨C although an appeal has been launched by female athletes against this using sex-based discrimination law Title IX.

And experts have warned that smaller sports and women¡¯s teams will probably be most at risk from future cuts.

¡°There are already skewed priorities on major campuses, where coaches earn up to $10 million a year while schools lay off faculty, and close smaller academic programs,¡± said LeRoy.??

¡°Now that the federal government is terminating so many grants, schools will have to decide whether and how to fill the funding gap. Major schools with large athletic programs are like Dickens¡¯ A Tale of Two Cities ¨C?one city is stable and wealthy, the other is chaotic and declining.¡±

Bass said her biggest worry is the?effects?the ruling will have on the educational mission of colleges.

¡°The very purpose of the university ¨C which is already under tremendous fire from the Trump administration ¨C is in jeopardy, and while athletics are an important and critical part of college life, whether athlete, alum or spectator, they cannot be the only thing.?

¡°I¡¯m not sure who or what exactly is going to get left behind, but I am sure that many will.¡±

But La Quita Frederick, associate professor of practice in sports industry management at Georgetown University, said the effects on academia might not necessarily be negative.

Some colleges may divert resources from academic programs to fund athletics, while others may double down on integrating athletics into their educational mission, she said.

¡°This is a watershed moment that forces higher education to confront uncomfortable truths: the commercialization of college sport, the blurred lines between amateurism and professionalism, and the evolving definition of student-athlete.

¡°Universities must now lead, not lag, in defining ethical models of compensation, equity, and inclusion spanning revenue and non-revenue sports as well as women¡¯s versus men¡¯s sports. From Title IX to NIL, from faculty governance to campus culture, this ruling touches every corner of the academy.¡±

51³Ô¹Ï

patrick.jack@timeshighereducation.com