The Financial and Operational Challenges of Year-Round Men’s Soccer

As reported by Sportico, the push to transition NCAA men’s soccer into a year-round model has once again emerged. Some see it as a way to increase competition and give these athletes more time to refine their skills. It would also align more with global and professional soccer calendars, creating an easier transition to higher levels of play.

However, the length of such a season presents significant financial and operational challenges for college athletic departments. So the debate — and the corresponding challenges — continue.

Why the push?

A year-round model for men’s collegiate soccer isn’t a new idea. The idea was presented to the NCAA back in 2000 by a group of college coaches. It was brought up again just before the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2022 and in 2023. In all instances, the suggestion was rejected (or at best, tabled).

This time around, the U.S. Soccer Federation has become more heavily involved with these efforts. It has held discussions with the Big Ten and the ACC to launch a pilot program and has launched college soccer working groups to discuss the possibility.

A Wide Slate of Concerns

A shift to a two-semester soccer season has prompted several concerns from universities. These issues are both financial and operational.

Increased Operating Expenses

Unlike football and men’s basketball, which generate substantial revenue through broadcast rights and ticket sales, men’s soccer does not produce the income needed to offset its costs. Extending the season would increase operating expenses across several areas:

• Travel – A longer season means more games and, presumably, more travel. This would increase costs related to transportation, lodging and meal expenses.
• Staffing – Trainers, nutritionists, creative staff and academic support personnel are normally shared with other sports. More of these personnel would have to be hired to serve men’s soccer teams operating throughout the year.
• Facilities – Wear and tear on fields and training facilities would increase, which in turn means higher maintenance costs (both immediately and over time).

These cost increases are especially problematic in a post-House settlement environment in which football revenues can no longer subsidize non-revenue sports. Institutions would have to cover these additional costs without reliable revenue streams. While partnerships with organizations like US Soccer might provide some funding, this support is unlikely to cover the full scope of operational expenses required for a year-round men’s soccer program.

Financial sustainability is a priority for athletic departments that are already navigating new budget constraints due to revenue-sharing models and compliance requirements stemming from the House settlement. These overhead costs add to budgets that are already stretched thin as departments work to accommodate revenue-sharing without cutting sports.

Complicated Logistics

Just as personnel are shared from sport to sport, so are facilities. Men’s soccer often alternates with track and field, lacrosse, field hockey and other sports when using fields, weight rooms, equipment and more. This could complicate scheduling and limit practice availability.

Game day operations, which already require staffing for ticketing, security, concessions and field maintenance, would need to be expanded to accommodate men’s soccer matches during the spring. This would add to operational expenses and require additional coordination across departments.

The Strain on Student-Athletes

As big a business as collegiate athletics is, we cannot forget the “student” in student-athlete. Even though the total number of competitions and overall travel would remain the same under the year-round men’s soccer proposal, extending soccer across the entire year creates ongoing demands. Athletes would be pulled in multiple directions for a longer period — leaving less time for academics, internships, job searches (especially as graduation nears) and personal development.

With no distinct off-season to recharge or concentrate fully on other responsibilities, players face a higher risk of burnout. And that can negatively affect their success in the classroom.

The Strain on Personnel

Student-athletes wouldn’t be the only ones facing pressure. Without additional hires, existing staff—particularly athletic trainers, compliance officers, and support services such as publicity and creative staff, nutritionists and academic support—would be stretched too thin, risking fatigue and diminishing the quality of support provided to student-athletes.

Additionally, any sport that operates on campus — even if independently governed — would still require institutional oversight related to academic eligibility, student conduct, health and safety and facility usage. This oversight adds legal and administrative complexity without reducing costs.

Institutions would also face logistical challenges under year-round men’s soccer. This could include creating new compliance structures, managing independent scheduling, and negotiating new broadcasting and sponsorship deals. These challenges require additional staffing and resources that most departments cannot afford.

The Title IX Factor

Shifting men’s soccer outside NCAA governance does not eliminate the core financial and compliance challenges that institutions face. Schools would still need to ensure compliance with Title IX regulations, which require proportional opportunities and equitable resources for men’s and women’s sports. The proposal to expand men’s soccer doesn’t seem to increase male participation numbers or the total number of competitions. However, it could potentially create an inequitable experience with women’s soccer if outside forces apply their influence on the men’s sport. This necessitates an intentional recurring Title IX evaluation by compliance, further straining athletic department resources.

The Bigger Picture

While the latest discussion centers on men’s soccer, it reflects a broader trend of external voices advocating for sports to break away from NCAA governance. This push threatens to destabilize the entire college sports model, with potential ripple effects for sports such as swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, wrestling and gymnastics.

These non-revenue sports are integral to the collegiate athletic ecosystem and serve as critical pipelines for Olympic development. The current NCAA model supports athletes who go on to represent the United States and other nations in international competition, including the Olympics. The financial pressures created by the House settlement could potentially force schools to reduce funding for these sports to cover the costs of revenue-sharing and expanded player compensation for revenue sports. So an external partnership might seem like the solution to the problem. But is it really?

Could External Partnerships Help?

In a world where students can receive sponsorship or advertising deals, some wonder why the sports themselves can’t do the same thing. Proponents of breaking away from the NCAA often argue that external funding and professional partnerships can sustain these sports.

However, this assumption overlooks the financial realities that athletic departments face. To date, no viable alternative model has emerged that can consistently generate the revenue needed to cover both player compensation and the operational costs of running these programs. If such a model were financially feasible, it would already exist.

Instead, colleges are left to shoulder the financial burden with limited options for generating additional revenue outside of football and men’s basketball. Men’s soccer, like most non-revenue sports, does not attract the broadcast viewership or sponsorship deals needed to support a year-round model. Even with external funding from organizations like US Soccer, the financial support is unlikely to cover the full scope of expenses, leaving colleges to absorb the shortfall.

If the goal is to create a more competitive development pipeline for men’s soccer, the responsibility should fall on professional leagues, not educational institutions. Organizations like US Soccer should focus on developing independent farm teams that allow athletes to train and compete year-round while earning compensation for their performance. This model would enable athletes to pursue higher education on their own terms (just like any other working student), without placing additional financial strain on college athletic departments.

Which raises the question—what is the value of having a farm team with a school logo on the front of the jersey? And would the university truly capitalize on that value (net of added costs) under the current proposal?

As CPAs and consultants who have worked with universities and athletics programs for decades, we know the importance of preserving a school’s educational mission while giving them an opportunity to develop their skills. We also know this must be done without placing an unsustainable financial burden on institutions. Colleges should focus on supporting student-athletes who balance academics and athletics, while professional organizations like US Soccer should take the lead in developing competitive pathways for athletes who aspire to play at the highest level.

With all this to consider, you likely have questions on whether the year-round men’s soccer movement is a positive one. Our Collegiate Athletics Services team can help you analyze the numbers and serve as a second set of eyes looking out for your department. We can also show you how to streamline your budget for flexibility given this and other unpredictable changes in collegiate athletics.

All content provided in this article is for informational purposes only. Matters discussed in this article are subject to change. For up-to-date information on this subject please contact a James Moore professional. James Moore will not be held responsible for any claim, loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of any information within these pages or any information accessed through this site.