5. A hard salary or revenue cap
← All 18 proposals · Outside proposals
Insiders (sourced entries)
Supporters
Deion Sanders (2025, "I wish there was a cap"); Mark Cuban (2026); Lincoln Riley (2026, "true salary cap"); Swinney (2025); Brett Yormark (2026, criticized "no salary cap").
No verbatim quote recorded for this entry; summary of the source only.
Swinney has backed revenue sharing because it comes with a salary cap and promised regulation of third-party NIL, but he opposes the House settlement's 105-man football roster limit because it squeezes out walk-ons.
“I wish there was a cap.”
At Big 12 media days, Sanders called for an NFL-style salary cap with transparent, regulated pay, arguing that booster-funded spending decides who makes the playoff.
“It's like the salary cap and the second apron in the NBA. It makes you think more. You have to be more strategic, you have to be more tactical. It protects us from ourselves.”
Backed keeping the House settlement's revenue-sharing cap, likening it to the NBA salary cap and second apron.
“I found a system that quickly was defined by unlimited free agency and no salary cap and complete chaos.”
Yormark said he found a system of 'unlimited free agency and no salary cap and complete chaos.' He backed the SCORE Act as 'progress over perfection' and called for regulating agents, who he said charge excessive fees and push athletes into the portal.
“Now, it has steadied. A true salary cap would steady it even more.”
Riley backed a 'true salary cap' to stabilize the sport but said it would only work if the model can actually be policed and hold up against lawsuits and state courts.
Complications or opponents
Greg Sankey (2026, antitrust law makes caps hard); Steve Berman (2026, soft cap only); Travis Hunter (2025, "no regulations").
“There shouldn't be no regulations. You earned it. Free market.”
Reacting on his podcast to reports of huge NIL deals for transfer QBs, Hunter said college players should get whatever the market will pay, without regulation, because they have almost no time off.
“So that's, I think the answer is the antitrust piece is the inherent problem in trying to create caps and limits.”
Asked why the House ruling wasn't appealed, Sankey pointed to the 9-0 Supreme Court loss in Alston and said antitrust law is the core obstacle to creating caps and limits.
“There is no cap on the amount of NIL deals. We would not agree to change that. That would be trying to restrict competition.”
Open to raising the revenue-share cap inside the settlement only if it stays soft; warned that a conference-built hard cap is 'not possible without our permission', though a one-free-transfer conference rule might survive.
College FootballNFL · later