The world of college sports sits at a wide crossroad — financially and philosophically. Following the House settlement,[1] universities and their athletic departments must navigate unprecedented challenges, driven by the convergence of several impactful forces. Top athletes command multimillion-dollar salaries and Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) deals while an arms race for state-of-the-art facility upgrades continues. All the while, the academies require focus on the “student” part of “student athlete.”
Such expectations will force, more than ever, athletic departments to perform at peak efficiency and replicate the revenue generation efforts of Fortune 500 companies. Unfortunately, universities in general, and athletic departments specifically, operate without the vast resources and tools that large for-profit enterprises typically leverage. In short, educational institutions feel financial pressure more than ever before. To address House challenges and increase revenue, athletic departments are increasingly looking beyond traditional revenue generating boundaries such as exploring new fundraising paths, monetizing university assets and securing substantial corporate sponsorships.
Josephine Gartrell, Managing Director of WTW and co-leader of WTW’s College and Professional Sports Compensation and Governance Advisory practice, facilitated a panel discussion at the 2025 NACDA & Affiliates Convention where speakers explored these complexities; specifically, focusing on how athletic departments can strategically reorganize to capitalize on new revenue streams. The conversation opened with noting how the role of athletic directors has evolved into one also requiring acute business acumen, from managing sponsorship negotiations and salary caps to steering financial initiatives crucial to a university's bottom line. This is on top of their already demanding schedules filled with more traditional responsibilities like student athlete development, managing relationships with coaches, donor engagement and community activism. Participants highlighted shifts from past to present roles in athletic management, emphasizing the need for broader revenue-generating responsibilities as an intrinsic aspect of thriving in the current landscape.
Panelist Brett Sweet, Chief Financial Officer of Vanderbilt University (Vanderbilt), detailed significant organizational changes within its athletics department, such as introducing a new role: CEO of Vanderbilt Enterprises. Sweet indicated that Vanderbilt ultimately hired Markus Schreyer, a global hospitality leader with over 25 years of industry experience. Moving to create such an additional role, he explained, was driven by the necessity to expand revenue streams beyond traditional athletic endeavors, encompassing broader university activities.
Bringing expertise from sectors like hospitality, exemplified by Vanderbilt hiring Schreyer, reflects the trend by universities with large athletic programs to hire from outside traditional athletic roles for certain positions. Positions like chief revenue officer and general manager are now tailored to meet the unique demands of each institution, requiring intricate governance processes to align with organizational goals. Those who approach the evolution of college athletics in this way often indicate that incorporating the external perspectives of adjacent industries into athletics will help them more effectively navigate the lucrative yet complex financial landscape of college athletics. Furthermore, such strategies allow traditional athletic directors to concentrate on core responsibilities without facing mounting pressure beyond sustainable levels.
Athletic department organizational adaptations through new and emerging roles are influencing their talent acquisition strategies and compensation structures. Panelist Russ Wilson, Senior Director and co-leader of WTW’s College and Professional Sports Compensation and Governance Advisory practice, also commented on the emerging trend of hiring talent from non-traditional pools to athletic department roles. Specifically, universities are recruiting from sectors such as professional sports, marketing, hospitality, management consulting and other commercial industries to capitalize on new revenue opportunities. Moreover, compensation models are evolving to resemble those in high-stakes business environments, combining base salaries with performance-based incentives.
Such new pay models may significantly increase maximum pay opportunities for athletic directors and new roles. Given the tax-exempt or governmental structure of most universities with large athletic programs, pay competitiveness must be balanced with the scrutiny over pay scales common in higher education settings. Discussions further underscored how state laws and market dynamics play critical roles in defining job responsibilities and compensation, accentuating the need for careful navigation to maintain both fairness and market competitiveness.
The NACDA session held by WTW and Vanderbilt underscored a crucial shift in the landscape of university athletics management, one that must integrate business-oriented roles into athletic departments to enhance financial sustainability. Institutions that embrace external expertise and innovate their compensation practices while concurrently providing athletic directors the support they need to excel in their roles will lead the charge in adapting to college athletics’ new realities. These changes are necessary not only for financial viability but also for ensuring student-athlete success and wellness, personnel management, institutional cohesion and favorable public opinion. The ongoing challenge remains in balancing these dynamic new roles with traditional athletic mandates within the larger educational framework.
