Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics – Division I leaders survey | Elon University Poll

abstract image of athletes running at a crossroads

College Sports at a Crossroads

National survey:

NCAA Division I campus leaders are deeply concerned about the direction of Division I sports, financial stability and the impact of the House v. NCAA settlement

An overwhelming majority of NCAA Division I campus leaders express negative views about the direction of college sports, indicating that new rules and trends will disproportionately harm collegiate women’s and men’s Olympic sports. Those leaders are also concerned about the growing reliance on student fees and other institutional funding, and they are strongly opposed to the current athlete transfer rules.

At the same time, these leaders strongly affirmed their unwavering commitment to the historic academic mission and standards of college sports.

These findings emerge from a national survey of Division I leaders conducted in early August 2025 by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and the Elon University Poll. A total of 376 university presidents and chancellors, athletics directors, senior woman administrators and faculty athletics representatives responded to the survey, a 26% response rate that provides a statistically representative sample of these Division I leadership positions within a +/-4.4% margin of error.

The survey captures leaders grappling with unprecedented change under terms of the House v. NCAA settlement that took effect July 1. The results reveal significant uncertainty and mixed views about the net impact of the new rules that allow greater athlete financial benefits to be provided by schools, setting the stage for a more professionalized model of college sports.

Survey details:

Conducted July 29 – August 22, 2025
Results released on October 9, 2025
Survey design: Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and the Elon University Poll
Fieldwork: Elon University Poll; Mode: online, web-based Qualtrics survey
Respondents: 376 NCAA Division I athletics leaders (26% response rate), including presidents and chancellors, athletics directors, senior woman administrators and faculty athletics representatives (full respondent profile in the methodology)
Overall margin of error: +/- 4.4%; see details in the survey methodology & topline

Background

In summer 2025, the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and the Elon University Poll partnered on a project that paired a national public opinion survey with a survey of select leaders at NCAA Division I institutions. The surveys were conducted following the landmark $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that ended several class action lawsuits filed against the NCAA and the five prominent athletic conferences that generate the most revenue. The House v. NCAA settlement permits Division I athletics programs to share revenue with athletes and compensate them for the value of their names, images and likenesses (NIL).

Survey findings

Executive summary | Full report (PDF) | Charts and data (PDF) |Methodology & topline

Key findings: Mission, finances and structure of college sports

	Is Division I headed in a positive or negative direction? 62% Negative 9% Positive 28% Unsure
	*What will be the impact of the House* settlement on Division I sports as a whole?** 76% Negative 16% Positive 8% Neither positive nor negative
	Importance of academics 98% Important for athletes to be enrolled full-time and taking classes 99% Important for athletes to graduate 95% Important for teams to graduate at least half of athletes to be eligible for postseason competition
	Concern about your athletics program’s reliance on institutional funds and student fees 86% of presidents/chancellors concerned 80% of athletics directors concerned
	Agree or disagree?: “The Division I structure continues to be viable as a single division within the NCAA” 62% Of all DI leaders disagree 69% Of presidents/chancellors disagree 55% Of athletics directors disagree
	Ability of your institution to sustain its current competitive classification level 48% Of FBS leaders concerned 60% Of non-FBS leaders concerned
	DI leaders support for this federal legislation: 86% National standards to regulate athlete NIL compensation 78% Laws to prevent college athletes from being classified as employees 77% National rules that supersede conflicting state laws 69% Limits on how much each institution can spend on specific sports or budget categories
	Providing university compensation to athletes for playing their sport, separate from NIL payments (*Current rules don’t permit this) FBS leaders: 45% support, 42% oppose Non-FBS leaders: 27% support, 64% oppose
	Creation of a new governing entity for Power 4 football teams separate from the NCAA 50% Of FBS leaders agree 57% Of non-FBS leaders agree
	FBS football having a single executive or commissioner to provide unified leadership for the sport, not just for its national championship (the CFP) FBS leaders: 58% support 26% neither support nor oppose 16% oppose

Key findings: Policies on athlete transfer, NIL compensation and seasons of competition

	Impact of the transfer portal on Division I 86% Negative 8% Positive 7% Neither positive nor negative
	Allowing athletes to transfer between schools as often as they choose with immediate eligibility to compete and no penalty 84% Oppose 11% Support 4% Neither support nor oppose
	Enforcing strong penalties for tampering with athletes or providing recruiting inducements before the transfer portal opens 94% Support 3% Oppose
	Important to limit athletes to four full seasons of eligibility 77% of all DI leaders agree 90% of presidents/chancellors agree 69% of athletics directors agree
	Impact of name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation for athletes on Division I 50% Negative 36% Positive 14% Neither positive nor negative
	How should new institutional NIL and revenue-sharing payments be distributed? Based on how much money an athlete’s sport generates or an athlete’s marketability 78% Athletics directors, 58% FBS leaders, 41% Non-FBS leaders Included with institutional financial assistance and distributed equitably to female and male athletes 9% Athletics directors, 26% FBS leaders, 33% Non-FBS leaders

Key findings: Women’s and collegiate Olympic sports

	Collegiate Olympic sports 93% Important for universities to offer sports other than those tied to generating revenues 92% Collegiate Olympic sports are important to the success of Team USA 82% Favor federal tax or fees on sports gambling operators to support collegiate Olympic sports programs 73% Favor federal funds to support collegiate Olympic sports programs
	*Impact of the House* settlement on the overall experience of Division I athletes in these sports: Athletes directors responses: FBS football: 75% POSITIVE, 15% negative Men’s basketball: 63% POSITIVE, 25% negative Women’s basketball: 50% POSITIVE, 33% negative Non-FBS football: 25% positive, 49% NEGATIVE All other women’s sports: 7% positive, 72% NEGATIVE All other men’s sports: 5% positive, 73% NEGATIVE**
	How have colleges and universities done in providing female athletes with equitable opportunities, financial assistance and treatment? 44% Been about right 43% Have not gone far enough 6% Gone too far 8% Unsure
	Will female athletes be in a worse or better situation with institution-provided NIL and revenue-sharing and greater scholarships? 55% Worse 25% Better 20% About the same Icons courtesy flaticon.com

Thoughts on the survey results

“This survey presents a clear picture of a defining moment in college sports. Navigating the path forward will require difficult decisions about finances, governance and the core identity of college athletics.” – Len Elmore, co-chair of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, former NBA player and television commentator
“It’s a new era in college sports, and the candid views of Division I leaders suggest this new era could be a troubling one that could harm women’s and collegiate Olympic sports. These findings should help inform Congress as it works to build a new model for Division I sports.” – Amy Privette Perko, CEO, Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics
“Our data reveal overwhelming consensus among college sports leaders: nearly nine in ten say the transfer portal is harming Division I athletics, and even more call for tougher rules to stop tampering. Leaders caution that an unchecked transfer system, combined with new financial incentives, is a volatile mix threatening to destabilize college sports.” – Jason Husser, director of the Elon University Poll and professor of political science and public policy
“The leaders share widespread agreement that the current framework of Division I faces an unprecedented crisis of stability and sustainability.” – Pam Bernard, co-chair of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics; vice president and general counsel, Duke University
“This survey of university leaders strikingly reveals profound concerns about changes in college athletics, particularly regarding risks to all sports except football and basketball, and especially to women’s sports and female athletes. Fewer than 30% believe that the Division 1 structure works anymore — the poll makes clear that the professionalization of Power 4 football calls for a complete reset in the framework for American intercollegiate sports.” – Bill Squadron, assistant professor of sport management, Elon University; former president of Bloomberg Sports and co-founder and CEO of Sportvision