It’s no secret that March is the most lucrative time of the year for the NCAA, which reported just over $1.38 billion in earnings for the 2024 fiscal year. The majority of that income can be traced back to two contracts—one with CBS and Turner to broadcast the men’s side of March Madness (valuing the tournament at just over $1.1 billion annually) and one with ESPN that covers nearly every other major college championship tournament, including women’s March Madness (valued at nearly $65 million annually). The landscape of college athletics, including the prominence of conference realignment and the transfer portal, has shaped both the men’s and women’s brackets and has ensured that more eyes than ever will be watching college basketball’s brightest stars take the court this spring. Demand is showing no signs of stopping, either, with advertising spaces for the tournament(s) nearly selling out. But this year’s NCAA Tournament will be notable for reasons beyond buzzer-beaters and Cinderella stories—it marks the death of amateurism as we know it.

Indeed, soon after the final buzzer sounds, the confetti settles, and “One Shining Moment” plays throughout the arena, all eyes will turn to Judge Claudia Wilken in the Northern District of California. On April 7, Wilken is expected to grant approval of the landmark settlement in the House v. NCAA antitrust case. The agreement (which was granted preliminary approval on October 7, 2024) promises to pay $2.576 billion in backpay damages to former college athletes who allege that their name, image, and likeness (NIL) was unfairly exploited as part of the NCAA’s multibillion-dollar business model. If Judge Wilken approves the settlement, NCAA institutions will also be able to “opt in” and begin paying their student athletes up to 22% of the average power conference athletic revenue—nearly $21 million per year—via revenue sharing, while an NCAA enforcement and oversight body will be able to review all NIL deals above $600. While some may view this as the final nail in the coffin of nonprofessional sports, the truth is that their grave has been under construction for some time, with everything from employment claims, NIL monetization, and ballooning recruitment benefits contributing to slowly weaken amateurism’s collegiate foundation.

Despite the recent withdrawal of employment status complaints by USC and Dartmouth athletes—echoing Northwestern’s failed NLRB bid in 2015—the rationale for labeling players as “student-athletes” instead of employees is eroding fast. Take Oregon, for example. After transferring into the Big Ten, its men’s basketball team totaled over 26,700 air miles this season (in other words, more than the distance around planet Earth)—the longest road trip in college sports history. Players crisscrossed the country for over 59 hours of flight time aboard Oregon’s 68-seat charter plane and took advantage of full schedules of remote classes to avoid on-campus obligations. While this may simply be the new reality of Power Four conferences that seemingly stretch from coast to coast, it hardly mirrors the athletes of old. Gone are the days of players who were unable to receive non-scholarship compensation of any sort, with mandatory on-campus attendance for classes and restrictions on snacks being athletes’ main concerns—now, players are more concerned with performance-diminishing jet lag and securing their next sponsorship deal. Meanwhile, the four-factor test in Johnson v. NCAA remains a potentially viable benchmark to answer questions about student-athlete employment status, signaling that players pursuing labor law protections may still have reasonable claims. 

This new frontier isn’t just reshaping college athletes, either—Mater Dei High School basketball just signed a multimillion media and NIL deal with Playfly Sports, continuing to pave the way for high school athletes to sign massive sponsorship deals as well. Further, the proposed settlement of the Tennessee vs. NCAA case (started during the infamous recruitment process of Nico Iamaleava) has resulted in the NCAA ceasing to enforce NIL restrictions during recruitment—extending the practice that allowed Bryce Underwood and AJ Dybantsa to sign record-setting multi-million dollar contracts reported at $12 million and $7 million apiece to play their respective sports. It seems clear that the new NIL landscape will allow both high school and college stars alike to earn millions based on the value of their likeness while leaving their NCAA eligibility untarnished.  

The effects of this new system can already be seen on both the men’s and women’s sides of the tournament. While there was no correlation between overall seed and basketball spending for the men’s teams, all of the schools seeded eighth or higher in this year’s tournament spent at least $8 million on basketball (with Saint Mary’s the lone exception at $6 million). Duke, the nation’s best men’s team for much of the season, spent nearly $22 million. On the women’s side, the link between dollars and dominance was far more defined: seven of the ten biggest spenders earned a top four seed in this year’s tournament. In addition, all teams seeded seventh or higher spent at least $5 million on women’s basketball (South Carolina led the way by spending $11 million). Furthermore, programs like Arizona and Arizona State have retained consulting services from major agencies like William Morris Endeavor, reflecting a growing trend of universities seeking professional guidance as they approach this new pay-to-win era. 

While this year’s March Madness champions have yet to be crowned, one only needs to turn back the clock to this year’s College Football Playoff to see the power of financial muscle on team performance in this NIL space. Ohio State, allegedly wielding a $22 million NIL budget for their football roster (as part of their athletics spending that recently topped the nation at $274.9 million), rode their investment to a National Championship victory this January. Similarly, a number one seed has won eleven of the last twelve NCAA women’s basketball tournaments. In today’s NIL landscape, money talks—and both schools and fans alike now have unprecedented opportunities to invest in players, and by extension, their team’s success.

With NIL valuations skyrocketing, legal standards in constant evolution, and institutional spending at levels we’ve never seen, the NCAA Tournament of old appears to be a relic of the past. As revenue sharing becomes the new norm and recruiting transforms into high-stakes bidding wars, the romanticized ideal of the unpaid student athlete who plays exclusively for school pride and the dream of a professional career feels increasingly nonexistent. March Madness will continue to captivate, but the era of pure amateurism is over. The future of the Big Dance is here—and it is unmistakably pay-to-play.

Oliver Canning is a 2L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning and found on LinkedIn.