Missouri Tabs $31 Million in NIL Spending

[CJ Vogel]

Came across this article and found it very interesting.

There have been dollar amounts and reports regarding athletic departments across the country and what they have been spending since the calendar year began. Of course, the Houston Chronicle report about Texas Football comes to mind with how much the current roster spends, as well as the report that Texas Tech has a collective payroll of $55 million across all of its sports as well.

Missouri is not a school competing for many national championships. Yet, the price tag remains very high.

• Football: T-3rd in SEC (5–3 record)
• M Basketball: 8th in SEC (10–8)
• W Basketball: 13th in SEC (3–13)
• Baseball: Last in SEC (3–27)
• Softball: Last in SEC (6–18)

All this to say, this is the price tag in current athletics for an average athletics department. 

[texaz]

Do you think in the future schools will have to disclose how much they are spending per sport and how much each player is getting? 

[THookem]

M I Z

[CJ Vogel]

4 minutes ago, texaz said:

Do you think in the future schools will have to disclose how much they are spending per sport and how much each player is getting? 

I don't see a way it's ever enforced. At least not truthfully.

[Hornmatic]

22 minutes ago, THookem said:

M I Z

More like M I D, amirite? 

[GoHorns1]

25 minutes ago, texaz said:

Do you think in the future schools will have to disclose how much they are spending per sport and how much each player is getting? 

No

[ArizonaLonghorn]

$31 million just doesn't buy you much these days in college sports, if Missouri's results are any indication 🙂  Now in my day that much money would have definitely done the trick ...

[cochamps]

1 hour ago, THookem said:

M I Z

MIZ - ERY  

[BobInHouston]

10 hours ago, CJ Vogel said:

I don't see a way it's ever enforced. At least not truthfully.

I look at it like a salary cap. I think there will be reports and the numbers will be released. If they aren't, what's the point of saying there's a limit?

On the other side of this is the clear implication that bag-dropping will resume. If Missouri is spending $31 mil before the cap, how will they have any competitive teams under $20 mil? They'll have to drop bags. All P4 teams will have to do that. And we will not find out about bag-dropping. 

[Glass Joe]

7 hours ago, BobInHouston said:

I look at it like a salary cap. I think there will be reports and the numbers will be released. If they aren't, what's the point of saying there's a limit?

On the other side of this is the clear implication that bag-dropping will resume. If Missouri is spending $31 mil before the cap, how will they have any competitive teams under $20 mil? They'll have to drop bags. All P4 teams will have to do that. And we will not find out about bag-dropping. 

Is the $20.5M really a compensation cap, or is it a floor?  My understanding is the $20.5m is the revenue sharing amount based off the $2.8B settlement spread across P4 schools athletic departments over some number of years.

 It is the amount required to be provided to (“shared”) athletes as NIL / marketing compensation, but it does not limit athletes at any school’s athletes from earning amounts above the $20.5M baseline through legitimate NIL / sponsorship deals (which the schools are allowed to facilitate for the athletes). Of course, the scope here are NIL based deals, not pay for play deals.

So, the $20.5m is a NIL compensation floor at a P4 school, not a compensation cap / ceiling.  Disclosure of NIL deals by athletes of P4 schools goes through the new CSC process and organization.  So, in theory, Mizzou can disclose they spent $31m in athlete NIL compensation by simply combining the $20.5M revenue sharing figure with the additional CSC-approved NIL deals (say, $10.5m in total).

[harveycmd]

12 minutes ago, Glass Joe said:

Is the $20.5M really a compensation cap, or is it a floor?  My understanding is the $20.5m is the revenue sharing amount based off the $2.8B settlement spread across P4 schools athletic departments over some number of years.

 It is the amount required to be provided to (“shared”) athletes as NIL / marketing compensation, but it does not limit athletes at any school’s athletes from earning amounts above the $20.5M baseline through legitimate NIL / sponsorship deals (which the schools are allowed to facilitate for the athletes). Of course, the scope here are NIL based deals, not pay for play deals.

So, the $20.5m is a NIL compensation floor at a P4 school, not a compensation cap / ceiling.  Disclosure of NIL deals by athletes of P4 schools goes through the new CSC process and organization.  So, in theory, Mizzou can disclose they spent $31m in athlete NIL compensation by simply combining the $20.5M revenue sharing figure with the additional CSC-approved NIL deals (say, $10.5m in total).

A school is not required to pay out the full 20.5. It's up to them. That's the max they can pay through revenue sharing. 

[Burnt Orange Horn]

Misery at $31M a year in athletics is likely unsustainable.

[Glass Joe]

2 hours ago, harveycmd said:

A school is not required to pay out the full 20.5. It's up to them. That's the max they can pay through revenue sharing. 

That’s the revenue sharing component, not the total compensation.  I’m not sure a P4 school is going to be competitive on the field if they choose to not payout the $20.5M allowable to athletes under the revenue sharing component.  So, the $20.5m revenue share acts as a “floor” for the total compensation athletes at a P4 school can receive.

But the $20.5M revenue share is not the total compensation for athletes, and doesn’t act as a compensation “cap” for athletes.  Legit NIL layered on top of the $20.5M revenue share is the total athletes compensation per school, and I don’t believe there can be any “cap” on this (legally).  So, the $31M for Missouri in total compensation to athletes under NIL makes sense in this context.  I also think this is where the “Texas spends $35M” rumor got started a few weeks back.

[harveycmd]

1 minute ago, Glass Joe said:

That’s the revenue sharing component, not the total compensation.  I’m not sure a P4 school is going to be competitive on the field if they choose to not payout the $20.5M allowable to athletes under the revenue sharing component.  So, the $20.5m revenue share acts as a “floor” for the total compensation athletes at a P4 school can receive.

But the $20.5M revenue share is not the total compensation for athletes, and doesn’t act as a compensation “cap” for athletes.  Legit NIL layered on top of the $20.5M revenue share is the total athletes compensation per school, and I don’t believe there can be any “cap” on this (legally).  So, the $31M for Missouri in total compensation to athletes under NIL makes sense in this context.  I also think this is where the “Texas spends $35M” rumor got started a few weeks back.

I was referring only to the lack of a requirement to pay the full 20.5 million in revenue share. I'm extremely dubious about the legal stability of the clearing house.

[BobInHouston]

On 6/18/2025 at 7:42 AM, Glass Joe said:

That’s the revenue sharing component, not the total compensation.  I’m not sure a P4 school is going to be competitive on the field if they choose to not payout the $20.5M allowable to athletes under the revenue sharing component.  So, the $20.5m revenue share acts as a “floor” for the total compensation athletes at a P4 school can receive.

But the $20.5M revenue share is not the total compensation for athletes, and doesn’t act as a compensation “cap” for athletes.  Legit NIL layered on top of the $20.5M revenue share is the total athletes compensation per school, and I don’t believe there can be any “cap” on this (legally).  So, the $31M for Missouri in total compensation to athletes under NIL makes sense in this context.  I also think this is where the “Texas spends $35M” rumor got started a few weeks back.

No one said anything about what we can call "real NIL." We've already heard that the clearinghouse (which I think is legally questionable) would have denied just about all of the recent NIL deals. So if 10 percent get through, assuming for a second that there was another $20.5M in real NIL for some schools, that's about $2 mil of additional money that would have been "approved." The $20.5 would be a cap as applied to the schools for all intents and purposes. Unless....

...As I and others have been saying, if Missouri and Tech have gone way beyond the cap number this year, and so many other high D-Is are probably doing so, we are headed back to a world in which bags are dropped just as they always had been. The schools don't want to be above the table. It's too much money and too much work. Dropping bags is cheaper and by and large understood within the community.