By LONNIE KING  |  © 2025 Big Daddy’s Texas Sports

College sports is entering a new financial era. For years, the debate around paying student-athletes centered on Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). But as lawsuits mount and economic pressure builds, the tide is shifting again. Now, revenue sharing—once unthinkable in the NCAA model—is becoming reality.

And if you’re looking for a school jumping in with both boots? You might want to look west toward Lubbock.

From Endorsements to Earnings: What’s the Difference?

Let’s pause and define terms.

NIL compensation allows athletes to earn money from third-party endorsements, social media, appearances, or booster-driven collectives. It’s essentially a marketplace where the most visible players—or the most aggressive collectives—win.

Revenue sharing, however, is something altogether different. It involves direct payments from the university itself, calculated as a portion of the revenue a sport generates. Think of it like a business distributing profits to employees or shareholders.

Some have argued that NIL was about personal brand; revenue sharing is about program buy-in. That’s not just semantics. When a player has a financial stake in the school’s success, they’re not just chasing personal exposure—they’re helping drive revenue they’ll directly benefit from.

The Texas Tech Approach: Bold or Risky?

Texas Tech isn’t waiting for consensus. With collectives like the Matador Club already offering annual payments to football and baseball players, Tech has positioned itself as a pioneer. And now, as revenue sharing becomes codified under the legal fallout of House v. NCAA, Tech appears ready to scale those efforts.

These aren’t just token bonuses. Reports suggest players across multiple sports are receiving $25,000 or more annually, structured as part of their involvement with university collectives and potentially future revenue share agreements.

Whether this is a model or a moonshot remains to be seen.

The Culture Question: What Happens in the Locker Room?

For all the buzz about equity and evolution, the money isn’t being spread evenly—and that could create unintended consequences.

Take the headline-grabbing deal for Felix Ojo, a five-star offensive tackle who recently committed to Texas Tech with a reported NIL agreement worth over $5 million. Ojo is considered one of the top linemen in the 2025 recruiting class, and he may well be worth every penny in the long run. But he hasn’t played a down of college football yet.

Meanwhile, upperclassmen who’ve already spent two or three years building the Red Raiders’ culture and grinding through seasons may be wondering what their loyalty is worth—and whether performance really determines value.

And then there’s NiJaree Canady, the Texas Tech softball phenom who became the first college softball player to land a million-dollar NIL deal. Her dominance on the mound may justify the price tag, but softball isn’t a traditional revenue-generating sport. Where does that money come from? And how does it impact teammates who aren’t receiving deals anywhere near that level?

Though often lumped into the broader athlete compensation conversation, Ojo’s and Canady’s deals are products of the NIL ecosystem—funded by donor collectives rather than university revenue-sharing—highlighting how blurred the lines are becoming as both models evolve side by side.

Those blurred lines have caused a lot of interested observers, myself included, to try to take a step back and view this through a wide-angle lens, to determine whether it’s ultimately a good thing or a bad thing.

The logic behind these payouts may be rooted in long-term vision, branding, or donor enthusiasm. But the emotional dynamics of a locker room—where teammates know exactly who’s making what—are trickier to manage. Jealousy. Resentment. Fragmentation. These are real risks, even on tight-knit teams.

The Texas Tech Test Tube

None of this is to say Texas Tech is doing it wrong. In some ways, they may be doing what’s next before others are ready to admit it’s inevitable. But it’s also fair to wonder if other schools might choose to sit back and watch, letting Tech serve as a test tube before diving into deep water themselves.

Big moves make big headlines. But they also bring big questions—not just about money, but about culture, cohesion, and sustainability.

Final Thought

I don’t know how all this will shake out. Maybe we’re watching the early stages of something more equitable and athlete-driven. Or maybe we’re watching the start of a spending arms race that leaves a trail of unintended damage.

Either way, it looks like Texas Tech has stepped out front. Time will tell if that’s a bold leap forward—or a cautionary tale in the making.