The discontinuation of athletic programs at these colleges and universities certainly reflects broader trends in higher education. Since the pandemic, financial challenges, declining enrollment, and strategic shifts in institutional priorities have become the norm, forcing many institutions to make difficult decisions regarding their athletics programs. While these changes are often necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the institutions, this fact does not make them any easier to stomach for stakeholders. 

Further, in a time when Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities for college athletes – especially at the largest institutions – continue to grow, simply maintaining competitiveness will become the name of the game for many athletic departments. Once unthinkable, the highest-earning college stars are now earning well into the millions annually. While a controversial issue for some, others have no problem with this. After all, it seems a fair question to ask: Shouldn’t the athletes who actually generate the entertainment have the opportunity to be paid?  

However, the problem arises when considering where these funds should actually come from. As noted in USA Today’s NCAA Finances database, just a fraction of athletics departments could function without allocations. That is, the direct financial support that comes from their universities. This quickly leads us to an unfortunate truth: the current model is unsustainable. How can departments that already cannot stand alone afford to pay tens of millions more annually to their star athletes? Recently, LA28 Chairperson and President Casey Wasserman expressed his concerns that Olympic sports and non-revenue sports are the first on the chopping block when more expenses are added to athletics departments. To be clear, NIL funds have not directly come from athletic departments to date, but from outside sources often referred to as “collectives.” However, the impending outcome of the House v. NCAA case means that “revenue sharing” between schools and their players would officially begin in July 2025. 

As harrowing as the situation has become for many athletic departments, the stories above reveal that many institutions themselves are facing critical concerns for their bottom lines. Chief among them appears to be the reality of a declining pool of students to draw from. Factors like ballooning tuition costs and more difficulty obtaining financial aid, decreased birth rates following the Great Recession, and fewer Gen Z high school graduates having confidence in the value of degrees have converged to create a significant issue for colleges nationwide. 

Yet, it is important to remember the ramifications here are not limited to campus stakeholders. For every college athletics department or team that is shut down, there is a direct translation into fewer hotel nights (and hotel tax collections), meals in local restaurants, and other local economic activity. Certainly, loss of civic pride is to be expected, as is decreased exposure for the towns, cities, counties, and states which host the schools.  

The understatement of the century here is that there is no quick fix silver bullet. Instead, the only real solution seems to be for colleges and universities across the country to become as efficient as possible. Schools must continue to seek ways to support their student-athletes and provide opportunities for them to succeed both academically and athletically. The stories above offer cautionary tales of the latest struggles of the “haves and have-nots,” for schools and their athletics departments. In this ever-evolving landscape, it is crucial for institutions to innovate and find sustainable models that balance financial realities with the commitment to their athletic programs. By doing so, they can ensure that student-athletes are given the tools to thrive, both on the field and in the classroom, preserving the rich traditions and community spirit that college sports bring to their campuses. 

Further, on the destination side, it is incumbent for sport and other tourism professionals nationwide to remain appraised of the significant impacts that cancellation of athletic programs can have. It would be easy for these professionals – who are busy creating and recruiting their own events – to fail to adequately account for the ramifications of cutting programs at colleges in their community (like decreased lodging tax revenue). Certainly, towns vary in size, meaning effects could be less pronounced for larger areas, but it is always wise to plan for some impact. 

Nevertheless, it is clear that the college athletics system is in a major state of flux. Likely, the most notable period of change in its more than 170-year history. There is not much that seems to be set in stone right now and more changes are sure to be coming down the pipe. As such, stakeholders must be intentional in their decision-making, proactively addressing the evolving landscape of college athletics. This requires a forward-thinking approach that prioritizes balancing the needs of student-athletes, the integrity of the academic mission, and the economic vitality of the surrounding community.