Women make a lot less than men

The statistics also show a vast difference in earnings between men and women, an issue that could impact schools' ability to comply with Title IX. That 1972 law requires schools to provide equal athletic scholarships and financial aid, but not necessarily that they spend the same dollar amount on men and women. Heading into 2025, there is no clarity on how this issue will play out.

Regardless, the numbers are jarring. The NCAA data set shows the average earnings for women in 16 sports was $8,624, compared with $33,321 for men in 11 sports. Men's basketball players averaged $56,000 compared with $11,500 for women.

Paying players could cost some, and benefit others.

The biggest losers from this move toward a professional model could be all the swimmers and wrestlers and field hockey players — the athletes in the so-called non-revenue sports, whose programs also happen to serve as the backbone of the US Olympic team.

Only a tiny percentage of those athletes are getting rich, and now that universities have to use revenue to pay the most sought-after players in their athletic programs, there could be cuts to the "smaller" sports.

Also, someone's going to have to backfill the revenue that will now go to the players. Well-heeled donors like Ellison are not around for every school, nor have private equity firms started sending money.

The average fan will have to pony up, and the last six months have seen dozens, if not hundreds, of athletic directors begging alumni for money and warning them of changes ahead. Already there are schools placing surcharges on tickets or concessions.

How will fans respond?

"I don't know that fans have this really great love for the idea of 100 percent pure amateurism," said Nels Popp, a University of North Carolina sports business professor.

"I think what they care about is the colors and the logos and the brand. I don't know that it matters to them if the players are making a little bit of money or a lot of money. They've been making money for the last couple of years, and I don't know if that's really making fans back off."

Olympics got rid of 'amateurs' and turned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

The last time amateurism came under such assault was in the 1980s, when the Olympics unwound the final remnants of pretending the vast majority of their athletes were anything other than full-time professionals.

The transformation was tinged with a note of honesty: The people putting on the show should reap some benefits from it.

Even 40 years later, there's a good argument they remain underpaid.

The contours of the same debate are shaping up in college sports.

Athletes are pushing for a players' association that would add more transparency to a business that, even with the changes coming, is still largely dictated by the schools.

The NCAA, while acceding to the need to pay the players, wants nothing to do with turning them into actual employees of the schools they play for. It's an expensive prospect, and one that is already winding its way through the legal system via lawsuits and labor hearings that many in college sports are desperate to avoid for fear it will push the entire industry off the financial cliff.

Among the few things everyone agrees on is that things aren't going back to a time when athletes pretended to play for pride, while the money moved under tables and through shadows. And that this, in fact, could only be the start, not the end, of the transformation of college sports.

"At some point, I think people might have to understand that, maybe, college athletes don't go to college anymore," Popp said. "Or maybe they don't go to class during the season. There could be more radical changes, and as long as they're wearing the right logo and the right colors, I'm not sure that fans really care."

Agencies Via Xinhua