It was an exercise in corporate branding that wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow in most pro sports. In college sports, it bordered on revolutionary.
In a full room of reporters, boosters and executives, the University of South Carolina delivered the news that it was bringing on a new sponsor that would put its logo on the football field for Gamecocks home games, starting next Sunday against Virginia Tech.
The deal with a machinery company was the centerpiece of a partnership that, Gamecocks athletic director Jeremiah Donati explained, represented the “largest single financial investment into our athletics department in our history, which will help us shape the future of our programs and our university for years to come.”
In a nod to the new realities of college sports, the NCAA just 14 months ago lifted a decades-old restriction on branding on the field of play.
It opened a new financing stream for universities that are sharing up to $20.5 million in revenue with their players over the next year while also doling out millions more in scholarships in an industry reshaped by the multibillion-dollar lawsuit settlement that has turned college sports into something that looks more like the pros.
Not everyone is seeing money walk through the door.
Just last week, the board at South Carolina’s upcoming opponent, Virginia Tech, received a bracing message from athletic director Whit Babcock: Without an influx of around $44 million to bring the sports budget to $200 million, the Hokies would keep falling behind.
“If we don’t radically leap forward now,” Babcock said, “we’re likely sealing our own fate for years and generations to come.”
Field branding is part of a bigger set of tools that schools are using to try to stay competitive; often those tools involve asking students, fans and the public to pay more.
“As the financial requirements in college athletics continue to evolve and grow, the pressure on athletic departments, our multimedia partners and others to provide new and different revenue streams is certainly there,” said J Batt, the athletic director at Michigan State, which has partnered with PlayFly Sports to identify new ways to raise money.
Ticket and concession prices
These have been couched in lots of different ways, but bottom line, it’s going to cost more to attend games at many schools.
Tennessee was among the first to introduce what it called a “talent fee,” which was a 10% surcharge on all athletic tickets.
Multiple Big Ten teams have increased student season ticket prices for football. Arkansas added a 3% “Student-Athlete Scholarship Enhancement Fee” to concessions sold at its sports events in what athletic director Hunter Yurachek told fans in a letter was a “small but meaningful way” to support athletes.
Nebraska, for the first time, will be selling beer to fans in general seating.
Adding to cost of tuition
Among the schools that added “athletic fees” to the cost of attendance were Clemson ($300 a year), South Carolina ($300), Louisville ($200) and West Virginia ($250). At Clemson, that fee is expected to raise around $7 million a year.
One possible hiccup: A bill making its way through Congress proposes to bar schools from using these sort of fees to bankroll college athletic programs.
Shifting money within the university
A 2023 analysis by Sportico estimated the “per student” level at which most schools subsidized their athletic departments through a mix of fees, direct and indirect financial support, government funding and other sources. At Power Four schools, it ranged from nothing to $1,400 per student. The numbers figure to trend upward.
Earlier this year, Texas Tech said it was earmarking an additional $9 million to support its athletic program, which has a budget of around $129 million and is also backed by its billionaire board of regents chair, Cody Campbell said.
At Missouri, administrators covered a $15.2 million deficit in the athletics budget with an “internal loan,” and also increased financial support for fiscal 2024 by $2.9 million to $25.7 million.
Kentucky’s board of trustees recently approved a plan to lend the athletics department $141 million — $110 million of which will go to fund facility projects and the rest going to offset expected deficits in 2025 and 2026.
Michigan State floated a $12.1 million “internal loan” to the athletic department, with expectation it will be repaid through increased revenue coming out of this new era in college sports.
Batt said Michigan State has signed a new concession deal with an outside provider, completed new, bigger scoreboards in the football stadium and is refurbishing its luxury boxes, all with an eye on generating more income.
“Finding those opportunities but staying true to the brand is part of those ‘win-wins’ that we’re looking for,” Batt said.
Asking boosters for more
Aside from tying increased giving to ticket prices, athletic directors are being transparent with their fans and simply letting them know that things are going to cost more.
In a letter to the Michigan fan base from June, athletic director Warde Manuel said payments to players and an increase in scholarship budget had the department facing a $27 million deficit for the 2025-26 school year.
He gave a detailed analysis of measures Michigan has taken to cut the deficit to $15 million. It included staff reductions and a $6 million reduction in TV revenues the department gave back to the university. But the letter came with the overarching message: “We still need your continued support.”
At some schools, the support will come in the form of unique “experiences.” At Oklahoma, two fans can sit in on the postgame news conference for the price of somewhere between $500 and $700.
At Kansas, they might not have to get so creative.
Last week, billionaire alum David Booth gave $300 million — believed to be the largest donation in college history — to be targeted toward construction around the football stadium and to generate income that athletic director Travis Goff said could last for decades.
Could it turn a school known for one the nation’s best basketball programs into a behemoth on the football field, as well?
“Philanthropy, like investing, pays dividends over time,” Booth said.