The financial landscape of college football is undergoing a seismic transformation. At the heart of this shift is the rapidly evolving Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) ecosystem—a marketplace that has turned amateur athletics into a high-stakes business. For elite programs, the cost of fielding a competitive football team is skyrocketing. And nowhere is this more evident than in Austin, Texas.

According to a report by The Houston Chronicle, the Texas Longhorns are expected to spend between $35 and $40 million on their football program in the 2025-2026 season—an eye-popping figure that includes NIL payouts, transfer portal acquisitions, and a revenue-sharing allotment likely shaped by the House v. NCAA settlement. For context, that's more than the athletic budgets of some entire Division I conferences.

What's Driving These Costs?

This multi-million dollar estimate includes:

• $20.5 million in revenue-sharing, as part of the anticipated House settlement framework;

• Millions more in NIL deals, facilitated in part by the Texas One Fund, the school's donor-led collective;

• Transfer portal incentives, which have become the new frontier of recruiting, where dollars now speak louder than tradition.

Texas added 10 players through the portal—and potentially more on the way—with NIL packages that rival professional rookie contracts. While this investment may yield short-term success on the field, school officials are already acknowledging the elephant in the room: sustainability.

A System at a Crossroads

One insider told the Chronicle the current spending is “unsustainable,” suggesting the college football world is due for a market correction. That sentiment reflects a growing concern across athletic departments and legal circles alike: How do we balance fair athlete compensation with financial realism?

Under the terms of the House settlement, universities will soon be required to share a portion of their revenue directly with athletes. This shifts NIL from a donor-driven “Wild West” model to one with formalized revenue-sharing agreements—essentially an evolution from unregulated endorsement chaos to quasi-employment structures. But even that evolution comes with massive legal and logistical questions.

What Are the Legal Implications?

At Saluja Law, we're closely monitoring how these changes intersect with labor law, Title IX compliance, and the rights of both international and domestic student-athletes. Key questions include:

• Will universities be classified as employers?

• How will schools fund gender-equitable NIL and revenue-sharing opportunities?

• What role will collectives play once revenue-sharing becomes institutionalized?

More fundamentally, this transformation forces a reckoning with the core values of collegiate athletics. If a single team's cost exceeds $40 million, what happens to mid-major programs? To non-revenue sports? To walk-ons and underfunded departments?

Looking Ahead

While Texas may be the most visible example of this NIL arms race, it's not alone. Schools nationwide are grappling with how to remain competitive without losing financial control—or legal footing.

The 2025-26 season may mark a high-water point in spending. As athletic directors and university lawyers recalibrate, we anticipate a growing movement toward regulation, transparency, and—hopefully—a more sustainable model for athlete compensation.

At Saluja Law, we stand ready to help universities, athletes, and collectives navigate this fast-changing legal terrain. Whether you're a school developing NIL policy, an athlete negotiating a deal, or a donor looking to fund future stars, we can help you do it the right way—legally, ethically, and effectively.