With the kickoff of the college football season this weekend, conversation will undoubtedly turn to the big recent changes in college athletics. This past June, there was a landmark decision when the House v NCAA settlement was approved, opening the door for revenue sharing with college athletes.

There have already been massive trickle down effects from this decision, but one of the biggest has been the significant new financial burden put on college athletic departments’ budgets.

Division 1 schools can now distribute up to $20.5 mil/yr with that figure expected to rise to around $32.9 mil by 2034-35. This has caused massive deficits even at the top echelon of college sports.

For example, even a high major powerhouse like the University of Michigan has already been scrambling to make immediate adjustments. Michigan had to make budget cuts and introduce supplemental revenue streams through alcohol sales and concerts to balance their budget after projecting an estimated $27 million deficit for 2025-26 following the House settlement.

That said, smaller and mid-major schools are feeling the impact the most, as many Group of Five and similar programs don’t even have $20 million in athletic revenue to begin with. This is posing a legitimate existential financial threat to college sports as we’ve known them. The disparity will increase, as Power 5 juggernauts fully fund athlete salaries, on top of already effectively buying out the top mid major performers each year through NIL money in the transfer portal.

All of this has caused schools to reevaluate their approach to athletics – budget cuts, reallocations, finding new avenues to bringing money into their programs (including private equity). Texas A&M is eliminating nearly $10 million via staff reductions, trimmed team budgets, fewer disbursements and restructuring scholarships. The sad reality here is that Olympic sports are on the chopping block at many institutions, due to limited funding and shifting priorities.

Tying this back to the world I live in, the world of sport performance technology … I have quickly found that college athletic departments, across the board (Sports Medicine & Rehab, Video & Analytics, Data Management, Strength & Conditioning, etc), are looking to save where they can, for all the reasons listed above.

One of the bigger line items for many D1 athletic departments is wearable technology, which has rapidly transitioned from a luxury item to a core pillar for the vast majority. The value of this data in reducing injuries and optimizing performance has been well-documented over the last decade. And the competitive landscape has intensified.

Five to ten years ago, there were 1-2 reliable GPS providers that monopolized the marketplace, given the quick rise in demand and the limited supply of trusted solutions.

Today, the marketplace has become a bit more saturated which has started to drive pricing down. Think of the TV industry over the last 10 years … a 55’ 4K Smart TV that cost $1,500+ in 2014 can now be found for under $400, due to mass production and scale, while LED and LCD panels became cheaper with improvements in production efficiency, increased market competition and feature standardization.

It’s been a similar story for the wearable technology industry. Through that process, there has been one company that has risen to the top in regards to value, with pricing that is a quarter of the cost; and accuracy that has equaled or exceeded that of the incumbents … all while providing a simpler workflow. That company is PlayerData.

As PlayerData continues to become more of a household name in this space and budgets continue to get tighter in today’s NCAA climate, I anticipate an increasing pressure on athletic department administrations to be more efficient with their tech budget allocation, while taking a closer look at PlayerData.