N※N

USOPC wants spending floor for Olympic sports

USOPC Pushes for Amendments to College Sports Bill to Safeguard Olympic Programs with Minimum Spending Requirements

In a significant move aimed at preserving the pipeline of American athletic talent for the Olympic Games, the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) has formally requested modifications to a pending college sports reform bill. The organization is advocating for the inclusion of provisions that would establish mandatory minimum spending levels for Olympic sports programs at colleges and universities across the nation. This push comes amid growing concerns that the evolving landscape of college athletics, particularly with the advent of revenue sharing and name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals, could lead to budget cuts in non-revenue-generating sports that are crucial for developing Olympic-caliber athletes.

The bill in question is part of a broader effort in Congress to overhaul the governance and financial structure of college sports. Lawmakers have been grappling with how to address the fallout from recent court decisions and NCAA policy changes that have upended the traditional amateur model. One key proposal under discussion is a framework that would allow athletes to share in the massive revenues generated by powerhouse programs, especially in football and men's basketball. However, the USOPC argues that without safeguards, these changes could disproportionately harm Olympic sports such as swimming, gymnastics, track and field, wrestling, and volleyball—disciplines that rarely turn a profit but serve as vital training grounds for Team USA.

USOPC CEO Sarah Hirshland emphasized the urgency of the situation in a statement, highlighting the symbiotic relationship between collegiate athletics and the Olympic movement. "Colleges and universities are the backbone of our Olympic success," Hirshland said. "More than 80% of U.S. Olympians come through the NCAA system. If we allow financial pressures to erode support for these programs, we're not just cutting sports teams—we're jeopardizing our nation's standing on the global stage." The committee's proposal calls for setting baseline funding thresholds, potentially tied to a percentage of overall athletic department revenues or institutional endowments, to ensure that Olympic sports receive consistent investment regardless of broader economic shifts in college sports.

This request is rooted in a wave of recent developments that have reshaped college athletics. The NCAA's decision to permit NIL compensation in 2021 opened the door for athletes to monetize their personal brands, leading to lucrative deals for stars in high-profile sports. More recently, a landmark settlement in the House v. NCAA antitrust case has paved the way for direct revenue sharing with athletes, potentially distributing billions of dollars over the next decade. While these changes promise greater equity for athletes, they also raise fears of resource reallocation. Athletic directors at major universities have already begun signaling that to fund these new obligations—estimated at up to $20 million per school annually—they may need to trim budgets elsewhere. Non-revenue sports, often referred to as "Olympic sports" due to their alignment with international competition, are seen as particularly vulnerable.

The USOPC's intervention is not without precedent. For years, the organization has collaborated with the NCAA and conferences to promote the value of these programs. Data from past Olympic cycles underscores their importance: At the Tokyo 2020 Games (held in 2021), over 1,000 athletes with NCAA ties represented the U.S., contributing to a medal haul that kept America atop the leaderboard. Sports like women's gymnastics and track and field, which rely heavily on college development, produced iconic moments and champions. Without sustained funding, experts warn, the U.S. could see a decline in depth and talent, especially in events where international rivals like China and European nations are investing heavily in youth programs.

To bolster their case, USOPC officials have pointed to specific examples of programs already under threat. In recent years, several universities have eliminated Olympic sports teams citing financial constraints. Stanford University, a traditional powerhouse in Olympic disciplines, announced cuts to 11 varsity sports in 2020, only to partially reverse the decision after alumni backlash. Similarly, institutions like the University of Minnesota and Clemson have axed programs such as men's gymnastics and track, decisions that ripple through the Olympic ecosystem. "These aren't just local issues," noted Gene Smith, a USOPC board member and former Ohio State athletic director. "When a college drops wrestling or swimming, it removes opportunities for hundreds of potential Olympians. We need federal guidelines to prevent a patchwork of protections that vary by state or conference."

The proposed tweaks to the bill would likely involve amendments that mandate a certain level of expenditure per Olympic sport, perhaps scaled by the size of the institution. For Power Five conference schools, this could mean allocating a fixed percentage of football-generated revenue—often exceeding $100 million annually—toward these programs. Smaller conferences might receive exemptions or adjusted thresholds to avoid undue burden. Advocates argue this would create a more balanced athletic model, ensuring that the windfall from media rights deals and ticket sales benefits the entire department, not just the revenue drivers.

Critics of the USOPC's stance, however, caution that imposing minimum spending could complicate an already contentious legislative process. Some lawmakers and NCAA officials worry that adding layers of requirements might derail the bill altogether, leaving college sports in limbo amid ongoing legal challenges. "We're trying to thread a needle here," said one congressional aide involved in the discussions. "Revenue sharing is essential for athlete rights, but mandating spending on specific sports could be seen as overreach." There's also the question of enforcement: Who would monitor compliance? The NCAA, already strained by governance issues, or a new federal oversight body?

Despite these hurdles, the USOPC remains optimistic. The organization has been lobbying key senators and representatives, including those on the Commerce Committee, which oversees sports-related legislation. Bipartisan support for Olympic funding exists, with figures like Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) expressing interest in protecting non-revenue sports. Trahan, a former college volleyball player, has been vocal about the need for holistic reform. "We can't build a system that only rewards the few while dismantling the foundation for many," she stated in a recent hearing.

Looking ahead, the implications of this debate extend far beyond college campuses. The U.S. has long dominated the Summer Olympics, but maintaining that edge requires investment at every level. With the 2028 Los Angeles Games on the horizon, the pressure is mounting to secure the collegiate pipeline. Emerging talents in sports like breaking (set to debut in Paris 2024) and surfing could benefit from robust university programs, fostering innovation and diversity in Team USA.

Athletes themselves have weighed in, with many current and former Olympians supporting the USOPC's call. Swimmer Katie Ledecky, a Stanford alumna and multiple gold medalist, has spoken about the role of college sports in her development. "My time at Stanford wasn't just about competing; it was about growing as an athlete and person," she said. "We owe it to the next generation to keep these opportunities alive."

As negotiations continue, the USOPC's proposal represents a critical juncture in the evolution of American sports. By embedding minimum spending limits into federal law, the organization seeks to future-proof Olympic programs against the financial upheavals of the NIL era. Whether this leads to meaningful change or gets lost in the shuffle of broader reforms remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: The fate of U.S. Olympic success is inextricably linked to the health of college athletics. In pushing for these tweaks, the USOPC is not merely advocating for budgets—it's fighting for the dreams of countless aspiring athletes who see the collegiate path as their gateway to glory on the world stage.

This development underscores a larger conversation about equity in sports funding. As colleges navigate the brave new world of athlete compensation, balancing the interests of revenue sports with the developmental needs of Olympic disciplines will be paramount. Failure to do so could result in a diminished American presence at future Games, where the medal count serves as a barometer of national athletic prowess. Conversely, successful integration of these protections could model a sustainable framework for other nations, reinforcing the U.S. as a leader in both collegiate and international sports.

In summary, the USOPC's request is a proactive step to mitigate risks in an era of rapid change. By advocating for minimum spending, the committee aims to ensure that the engines of Olympic talent—college programs—remain fueled and functional. As the bill progresses through Congress, stakeholders from all sides will need to collaborate to craft a solution that honors the past while embracing the future of American athletics. (Word count: 1,248)

Read the Full ESPN Article at:
[ https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/45790310/usopc-asks-tweak-college-sports-bill-set-minimum-spending-limits-olympic-programs ]