COLUMBIA, Mo. 鈥 Meeting with reporters on Thursday for the first time since the college sports-altering House settlement was approved last week, Missouri athletics director Laird Veatch went heavy on optimism and light on specifics as he sought to both assert and protect a competitive advantage.
Confidence has been consistent from Veatch in the months of legal limbo that preceded last Friday鈥檚 approval of a multi-billion-dollar settlement in the House v. NCAA case which will change the way collegiate athletes are compensated. But now, with the settlement approved by a federal judge and taking effect July 1, Veatch still declined to share how Mizzou will spend millions of dollars in shared revenue each year with its athletes.
MU, like all Southeastern Conference schools, will share the maximum amount of revenue permitted by the settlement. In total, that鈥檒l be $20.5 million. But as Veatch confirmed for the first time on Thursday, SEC schools have agreed that $2.5 million in added scholarships will count toward that revenue-sharing cap, leaving the functional amount at $18 million.
People are also reading…
In addition to that conference-wide pledge, Missouri has added an additional $500,000 in new athletic scholarships, bringing the total to more than 60 new scholarships worth a total of approximately $3 million.
How the $18 million in revenue-sharing funds will be distributed between Mizzou鈥檚 18 sponsored teams is chief among the lingering questions about how the athletics department will proceed under the House settlement.
Asked directly by the Post-Dispatch how many sports will receive revenue-sharing funds and what the breakdown will be, Veatch gave only limited details.
Football and men鈥檚 basketball will receive 鈥渢he bulk鈥 of the $18 million, he said, which is no surprise. Those two sports combined to generate 94% of Missouri鈥檚 revenue attributable to individual sports during the most recent fiscal year.
Not every team will receive revenue-sharing funds, either, Veatch said, though he didn鈥檛 say how many will or won鈥檛. Which sports receive revenue sharing 鈥 and the distribution between them 鈥 can change from year to year, he said.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 feel like we鈥檙e in a position to share specific sports and specific details and amounts,鈥 Veatch said. 鈥淭he reason for that, candidly, is that until we鈥檙e at a point where this process allows for that kind of transparency across the board with all sports, I just don鈥檛 see a competitive value or reason 鈥 a strategic incentive 鈥 for us to disclose those specifics. I do think that will likely happen in time across the board, but until that time, I just don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 in the best interest of Mizzou.鈥
Other schools have put their plans on the record.
Ohio State athletics director Ross Bjork that the Buckeyes will share revenue with their football, men鈥檚 basketball, women鈥檚 basketball and women鈥檚 volleyball teams. Texas A&M athletics director Trev Alberts that the Aggies will give revenue-sharing funds to six programs. The athletics directors at , and 鈥 some of the most successful SEC schools 鈥 have all said they鈥檒l roughly follow a 75-15-5-5 model.
That structure would give 75% of available revenue-sharing funds to football, 15% to men鈥檚 basketball, 5% to women鈥檚 basketball and 5% spread across any other sports receiving shared revenue.
Using $18 million as the total amount of available shared revenue, that formula would allot $13.5 million to football, $2.7 million to men鈥檚 basketball, $900,000 to women鈥檚 basketball and another $900,000 for other sports.
Given the degree to which the 75-15-5-5 structure seems to be popular across the SEC and Big Ten, it would be surprising if Missouri鈥檚 distribution deviated too much from that model. Still, it鈥檚 unclear what exactly MU鈥檚 course of action will be 鈥 and Veatch sees keeping it that way as a competitive benefit.
鈥淎s that comes out in the future across the board, we may change that position,鈥 he said. 鈥渂ut at this point, we feel like providing the insight we have is far enough.鈥
Mizzou could stand to benefit on the hardwood from upping its men鈥檚 basketball revenue sharing from the quasi-standard 15% to closer to 20%, which would be more in line with the percentage of attributable revenue brought in by the sport. Giving coach Dennis Gates another several hundred thousand dollars, or more, to prioritize men鈥檚 basketball could indicate the school鈥檚 ambition of returning to its past status in the sport.
Taking any funding away from coach Eli Drinkwitz and a football program that has sold out its past 12 games, however, would be a tough sell. And many of the Tigers鈥 other sports programs have cases for why they should get shared revenue.
It鈥檚 unlikely that new women鈥檚 basketball coach Kellie Harper took the Mizzou job to rebuild a program without promises of the money to do so. Veatch pledged earlier in the year to invest more in women鈥檚 hoops.
He similarly has said he wants to invest more in MU鈥檚 floundering baseball program. Investment is already on the way to Taylor Stadium to complete the diamond鈥檚 artificial turf, but revenue-sharing funds could buy coach Kerrick Jackson a roster capable of competing in the baseball-serious SEC.
Softball coach Larissa Anderson needs to find transfer portal talent to recover Missouri鈥檚 perennial spot in the NCAA Tournament. Volleyball coach Dawn Sullivan has shown promise in her first two seasons. MU gymnastics, under coach Shannon Welker, is the highest-performing program on campus right now. Wrestling coach Brian Smith is an institution who produces All-Americans and national champions.
Do all of them receive shared revenue? Which are left out? Who gets the most?
These questions have evidently been settled by now inside the Mizzou athletics offices 鈥 at least for the first year of revenue sharing.
鈥淚t was a lot of conversation,鈥 Veatch said, among a leadership team. 鈥... A lot of factors, a lot of data and input went into that. It would be difficult to extrapolate that out and share the specific details, but it took a lot of discussion and a lot of thought on a lot of levels 鈥 both in terms of the brand value that those student-athletes provide to the institution, our competitive positions, etc.鈥
If that sounds like pressure to get the decisions right 鈥 and get the money to share with athletes in the first place 鈥 it is. But it鈥檚 despite those that Veatch seems so confident in the path he鈥檚 charted for Missouri.
Asked what his biggest concern is as the school enters the revenue-sharing era, he acknowledged the logistics and money elements that make athletic directors lose sleep, then turned to the positives.
鈥淚鈥檇 say just the concern is really more of the operational and financial pressures that go into it,鈥 Veatch said. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e significant for us, as they are for everyone. I do genuinely look at this as an opportunity for Mizzou. I think we are uniquely positioned to take advantage of this and continue to elevate. We鈥檙e taking that stance.鈥
