The murky future of college sports: Q&A with USC president Michael Amiridis

A few weeks ago, inside of a Hilton conference room in Miramar Beach, Florida, all 16 Southeastern Conference presidents and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey gathered, all trying to chart a path forward.

The presidents weren’t drawing up a new institution. This was not the 21st-century Continental Congress, forming a new nation as kids in in swim trunks and sandals galloped to the beach.

But it was the most powerful people in the most powerful conference in college athletics understanding what their world might soon look like and attempting to get on the same page about what they do and not not want included in that new world.

Top of the discussion was the looming $2.75 billion settlement stemming from the House v. NCAA class-action lawsuit. It has not been completely settled, but the actions of many conferences indicate it will go through.

What we know is that it would open the door for schools to directly pay its student-athletes — approximately up to $22 million annually — and it introduces a whole host of other questions that no one seems to have an answer for: How will it impact Title IX? How will it be decided how much each player makes? What will become of NIL collectives? Will this mark the end of walk-ons?

The list of unknowns goes on and on.

But after the final day of the SEC meetings, The State spoke with South Carolina president Michael Amiridis to try and understand how the changes in college athletics will impact South Carolina.

The State — There’s so much going around in college football. What have the SEC presidents been and where did you get during the SEC meetings?

Michael Amiridis — Well, there’s a new model that we’re going to have. It’s obvious the settlement is changing the rules, changing everything. So what we are doing is we’re trying to put these rules together, one after the other and try to create a timetable. Of course, the settlement gives us roughly one academic year. And during this year, what needs to be done? How will it be done? And so it’s a lot of planning. It’s a lot of different opinions. It’s regulations that may or may not exist. So it’s a complicated process. It’s really a complicated process. At the same time, it’s interesting, it’s exciting. Because we are building a new normal that we hope will stay.

TS — What do you feel like has been built of that model, that structure so far?

MA — It’s still pretty early. Right now, we are trying to divide down the tasks in making sure that the right people get involved to come up with answers.

TS — There’s obviously going to be the model of pay for play that’s coming pretty soon.

MA — Well, it’s the settlement. And it’s not a settlement yet. We have a preliminary set. So we have to wait at least for a few more months before we know what the exact final deal is.

TS — This could come into effect next year, which doesn’t give you guys a lot of time to plan. What have you talked about with your senior administrators about managing the budget, and making sure that you guys are possibly ready to, you know, spend $15 million or $20 million, that you weren’t in the past?

MA — All of this is a work in progress. There is significant amount of uncertainty there. So that’s the work that needs to be done. I wish they had answers. We don’t have them right now. We’re trying to work them out.

TS —The roster limit has been the big thing that a lot of the college football coaches …

MA — It’s one of the things, the new conditions that we’ll have based on the settlement. So still, these are part of the discussions right now — what will be the roster (size), how is this going to replace the scholarships or not?

TS — Are you guys able to lobby in any way? Like can you say ‘Hey, our coaches don’t like the roster limit at 85 for football?’

MA — There is this discussion that is taking place. At this point, there is no decision that has been made. They have at this point, as you know, they have 85 scholarships. And they have a number of walk-ons. This is the discussion that is very technical. How many do you really need? The coaches have expressed their opinions — I saw the story from coach [Shane] Beamer and he did the right thing. He’s the expert in this area and he’s putting his opinion (out there). The athletic directors are putting their opinions out there. And we’re waiting to see how we can find a compromise.

TS —There’s a lot of talk with schools having to pay more money in the near future that private equity could make its way into college athletics. At South Carolina, what are your thoughts on that? And have you had any preliminary discussions with any private-equity people?

MA — Nobody has approached us. We haven’t talked with anybody. I’ve read the stories about it and, of course, the question is about control. Who controls the situation? What is expected of these private-equity groups? Because they don’t do this for philanthropy. They’re doing this to have a gain, to have some kind of revenue. So quite frankly, at this point, we’re not paying too much attention to it. I view it as part of the noise. Now we’ll see how it develops because there will be a need for resources. But I haven’t paid too much attention to it, honestly.

TS — You mentioned the need for resources. Some of the SEC ADs have said, ‘You know, we’ve spent too much in college athletics and we might have to start cutting back.’ Is anybody willing to make a guarantee that sports won’t be cut? Or is that just something that kind of has to wait and see?

MA — I can tell you that there is a strong desire across the conference to protect Olympic sports, to protect women’s sports. I think the probability that you would have to cut down — you never say never — but at this point the way that I see it and with what is happening from the USC perspective and from the entire conference is not based on cutting down sports.

We have seen these attempts by others in the past and you know exactly what the reaction was and how, immediately, within weeks they reverse the decision. It happens across the country. It happened during COVID as well. That’s not the idea. The idea is not to decrease the number of student-athletes.

TS — Do you at outside-the-box ideas for revenue like putting a naming rights deal on Williams-Brice or maybe we can have logos on the jersey or field?

MA — Yeah, that is not outside the box right now. The private equity is outside of the box. But, absolutely, we have these discussions. We have discussions about how can we increase the revenue through other avenues that we may have? Can we expand the markets? Absolutely. All the time this is what’s coming up. And what I hear, and we have heard it in South Carolina and I’m hearing it across the country also — the model that we have right now with the number of supporters and NIL deals, it’s not sustainable.

TS — I’m guessing there’s a lot of donors who are really fatigued?

MA — That’s what I hear across the country. It’s not just South Carolina. It’s what’s happening across the country.

TS — With the SEC expanding this year, where do you feel South Carolina fits into the picture athletically, in terms of resources and success?

MA — It hasn’t changed. The presence of Oklahoma and Texas will not change that much the pecking order, if you will. We will continue to have our strengths and we’ll continue to have our weaknesses in certain areas. We are adding two very strong schools, but that’s the fun about this.

TS — Is it fun?

MA — It is fun. It is fun. It’s the fun of the competition. When you see, for example, what we did last year with both of our basketball teams to be competitive up to the last game. In the case of the women, who won big time, and in the case of the men, who came that close to winning the conference. That’s what makes it exciting. That’s what brings so many people into our venues. They want to compete and it will be even more difficult (next year), but it is what it is. We are in the top conference in the country.

TS — I saw you come out of the Cockaboose before the Clemson game this year. I’ve seen you at a bunch of random baseball games. How much do you enjoy athletics and how much do you realize that athletics can impact admissions?

MA — It’s both. It’s both. I love sports. I’m there because I like the environment. I like being in the student section — at the beginning of every game, I go over with my wife to the student section for the Sandstorm. There’s so much energy there. It’s great. And sometimes for the basketball games, we’ll go into the student section as well. So I enjoy the environment, right? It gives you energy., It’s exciting.

At the same time, yes, it is one of the factors that we have to attract students. People ask me: Are they coming for the SEC? Or are they coming for the Greek communities (fraternities and sororities) — not my Greek? (Amiridis is from Greece.) Or are they coming for the wonderful programs we have that are internationally recognized like the business school or the sport management or the law school? Or are they coming because of the weather? Or are they coming because of the culture? And the answer is yes.

TS — To all of it?

MA — Yes. There are different components and different students may have bigger preferences here or there. But being able to provide all of those things as the student experience. All of that creates what we have right now. And athletics is a good part of it.

TS — You mention that, but has there been any talks between you or the board of trustees about increasing the institutional support toward athletics financially?

MA — Look, these are tricky discussions. I don’t — the budget of athletics has been continuously increasing because of the revenue they bring in. And they are managing it well. And they manage to do what they do with the revenue that they bring in. And I hope that will continue because if you start thinking about tuition dollars going towards athletics, it makes no sense. Because the students pay for their education.

TS — But don’t they pay an athletics fee?

MA — They do pay an athletics fee, but that’s fine. That’s a separate thing — very specific. What I don’t expect is that we’ll be taking state money — taxpayer money — (and putting it) toward athletics. I don’t expect we’ll do that because the money is coming from the budget of the university. So athletics does very well at this point raising the money themselves and being able to manage it. So I don’t see, at this point, any reason to change the model that we have.

TS — The SEC is the place to be right now in college athletics and there’s other schools that want to get in. Have you had any discussions about what would happen if Clemson reached out to the SEC? And would you guys push back on that?

MA — Look, the discussions that are taking place at the SEC right now are trying to build the future, the new normal that we’re facing and the new model that we have. We are just a few days from finally welcoming Oklahoma and Texas. So all of our talks have been on what is the new normal and how do we bring in the two new schools we have. There have not been discussions about expansion.

Now, if at some point in the future this comes up, there are going to be different parameters we have. The same way we looked at Texas, Oklahoma. And it was not me, I was not here when it happened. (But) there are several parameters: Is this creating a new market? Is it giving us a new market? Is it going to create more revenue? Is it a successful program? Is it a strength program? Is it a strong university? All of these parameters will be taken (into account) if we get to that point.

But right now, I don’t think there is any appetite to talk about an extension. We have so many other problems. And I wouldn’t call it problems. It’s work that we have to do — exciting work.

TS — What’s the one or two things that excites you about the problems you’re gonna have to solve over the next eight months?

MA — We have an opportunity to reset what is happening right now. The situation we’ve had with the collectives and the NIL processes and all of this — it was obviously a transitional period. And a lot of our fans, our supporters, our students did not like it, did not understand it. Why is this happening all the time? How is it done? That’s the exciting part. After this settlement, we have an opportunity to redesign.

TS — But even with the settlement, the transfer portal is still going to be there. We’re still going to have NIL and collectives. Isn’t all of that going to stay the same?

MA — All of this needs to be figured out. All of this is a work in progress.

TS — I guess that extends to how does Title IX fit into all of this?

MA — All of these are the discussions I’ve had in the last few days. And we are not ready to come out and give solutions. These are the types of things that we need to redesign.

TS — Does it frustrate you to not have the answers to things?

MA — I think we will get the answers. I think we’re on a good path right now to see how we are going to restructure what we are doing.