High Revenues, Absent Compensation: March Madness and the Evolution of Student-Athlete Compensation
Ines Hwang | May 7, 2026
Every year, once spring rolls around, March Madness draws millions of viewers and generates billions in revenue through sponsorships, advertising, and broadcasting deals. Especially, key rounds like the Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, and Final Four, rival or even surpass professional basketball in viewership. Average March Madness viewership is roughly 9.1 million, with a steady rise over the years, while the 2025 NBA playoffs averaged 4.4 million viewers. (Zaksheske & Zaksheske, 2026) Despite such immense commercial success, college athletes have historically received no direct compensation from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for the use of their identities and branding in promotional materials. Despite the expansion of NIL rights and ongoing legal challenges, the current compensation structure of the NCAA remains largely indirect and insufficient relative to the revenues generated by March Madness, raising the need for more fair and direct forms of athlete compensation.
The legal tension surrounding NIL is not new; there have been several landmark cases over the years: NCAA Legislative Amendment (1975), NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984), O'Bannon v. NCAA (2015), National Labor Relations Board Petition (2014), California Fair Pay to Play Act (2019). Most importantly, in 2021, in NCAA v. Alston, the Supreme Court addressed the NCAA's restrictions on education-related benefits for student-athletes, questioning the legitimacy of its amateurism model under antitrust law. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, criticized the compensation framework that “The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.” (3) This case resulted in a unanimous 9–0 decision against the NCAA. This case in 2021 paved the way for major changes in student-athletes' ability to receive compensation through Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals and increased legal pressure on the NCAA’s traditional amateur model. The decision exposed the imbalance between the massive revenues generated by college athletes and the limited benefits they receive.
In the past, the NCAA justified this imbalance through the principle of amateurism, framing student-athletes as “participants” in educational activities rather than economic actors. (Tomasetti, 2021) This model allowed athletes to be compensated primarily through scholarships and limited stipends, while prohibiting them from profiting off their own brand that generates immense revenue. Initially, these revenues were minimal, but as digital media start rising, college sports evolved into a multi-billion-dollar industry, where the distinction between amateur and professional has become difficult to maintain. March Madness is one of its product that amassed public attention as the NCAA continued to capitalize on the visibility and marketability of student-athletes.
In the years following NCAA v. Alston (2021), the structure of college athletics shifted rapidly. While the decision was limited to education-related benefits, it rejected the long-standing amateurism model of the NCAA and embodied that this model cannot withstand modern legal scrutiny. A major step in this transition is the expansion of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies. In 2022, the NCAA Board of Directors issued additional guidance on how member schools can promote student-athletes' NIL activities. Yet, college athletes are still prohibited from directly negotiating deals or offering compensation linked to recruiting, to which the NCAA emphasized these rules are designed to “[foster] a fair and appropriate NIL environment that supports our students and complies with [their] rules.” (Durham, 2022) The new provisions are demonstrating the NCAA’s attempt to modernize athlete compensation without fully abandoning their original frameworks. Despite these policy changes, a significant contradiction remains. March Madness is considered the greatest post-season events in sports (Payne, 2026), and its compensation for athletes is indirect, coming from third-party endorsements or limited institutional support. Even with NIL opportunities, athletes’ earnings vary greatly depending on access to visibility and exposure.
Recently, in House v. NCAA (2025), current and former college athletes brought lawsuits against the NCAA, challenging restrictions on athlete compensation, especially regarding NIL and revenue sharing. The athletes (plaintiffs) argued that the NCAA and major athletic conferences illegally restricted their ability to earn proper compensation. They were denied compensation in connection with NIL rights and revenue from major events like March Madness, and that these rules violate federal antitrust law. This lawsuit resulted in a $2.8 billion settlement in which the NCAA and other major conferences agreed to pay back damages to athletes and adopt a new system that may include revenue sharing with athletes. (Murphy, 2025) This case is critical as it directly advocates for college athlete compensation to pay-for-play models to truly and fairly recognize their contributions.
Ultimately, college athletics remain fluid, and while the NCAA has yet to adopt a system of direct compensation, the combination of NIL rights, evolving institutional policies, and ongoing legal challenges signals that further change is inevitable. The gap between the massive revenues of college sports and the compensation of athletes who drive them is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Future reforms may finally redefine the meaning of amateurism in college athletics.
References
Durham, M. (2022, October 26). DI board approves clarifications for interim NIL policy. NCAA.org. https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/10/26/media-center-di-board-approves-clarifications-for-interim-nil-policy.aspx
Murphy, D. (2025, June 7). Judge OK’s $2.8B settlement, paving way for colleges to pay athletes - ESPN. ESPN.com. https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/45467505/judge-grants-final-approval-house-v-ncaa-settlement
Payne, T. (2026, March 31). Why March Madness is the greatest postseason event in sports. The Oracle. https://www.tntechoracle.com/2026/03/31/why-march-madness-is-the-greatest-postseason-event-in-sports/
Tomasetti, D. (2021, November 24). The Legal Impact Resulting from Labeling Student-Athletes as Employees | Villanova University. https://www.villanova.edu/villanova/law/academics/sportslaw/commentary/mslj_blog/2021/TheLegalImpactResultingfromLabeling.html
Zaksheske, D., & Zaksheske, D. (2026, March 23). March Madness opening Day Ratings show America loves hoops, but not the NBA | OutKick. OutKick. https://www.outkick.com/sports/march-madness-2026-opening-day-ratings-vs-nba
