Team USA’s performance in Paris was nothing short of spectacular. The United States led the overall medal count, securing 126 medals: 40 gold, 44 silver, and 42 bronze. This remarkable tally outpaced other leading nations such as China, which finished with 91 medals, and Great Britain, which secured 65. The U.S. athletes excelled across various sports, from swimming and track and field to gymnastics and team sports like basketball and soccer.
A feeder for Team USA
A significant portion of Team USA’s success is due to the robust college sports system in the United States. College athletics have traditionally served as a critical training ground for future Olympians, providing them with the facilities, coaching, and competitive environment necessary to develop their skills. In fact, approximately 80% of U.S. Olympians in Paris had competed collegiately. This includes athletes from NCAA, junior colleges, NAIA, and club programs. Moreover, many successful athletes from other countries also competed at the U.S. collegiate level.
The NCAA has traditionally played a pivotal role. For example, the U.S. women’s basketball and soccer teams, which have dominated their respective sports, are composed largely of former college athletes who honed their skills in NCAA competitions.
Women, Title IX, and Olympic dominance
The dominance of U.S. women in sports like basketball and soccer can be traced back to the impact of Title IX, the landmark gender equity law passed in 1972. Title IX mandated equal opportunities for women in federally funded education programs, including athletics. Before Title IX, opportunities for women in sports were limited. The law’s implementation resulted in a tenfold increase in girls participating in high school sports and a sixfold increase in women competing in intercollegiate sports. This surge in participation has translated into success, including 66 medals overall in Paris.
Of course, Title IX’s influence extends beyond basketball and soccer. It has also fostered growth in sports like track and field, volleyball, gymnastics and swimming.
A change is coming
The House vs. NCAA case will likely lead to significant changes, providing substantial financial benefits to athletes in high-revenue sports like football. However, the NCAA and school athletic directors warn that this could result in cuts to non-revenue (no big TV contracts or stadiums full of people) sports to balance budgets. These sports, including track and field, are vital for nurturing Olympic talent. The future of the U.S. Olympic program will likely be affected by how colleges allocate resources under this new model.
New ways of thinking
Athletes now have opportunities for NIL deals that can provide them with at least some financial support. Of course, star athletes in revenue-generating sports will likely get the biggest deals, but standouts in all sports will likely have their audience, perhaps even at the national or international level.
Still, schools and organizations will need to pivot in this changing landscape with new funding models to support athletes. Examples include:
- Larger endowments and donations
- Public-private partnerships
- Revenue sharing across sports
- Larger grants and scholarships
- Community engagement programs
By exploring and implementing these alternative funding models, universities can create a more sustainable and equitable environment for all athletes, ensuring that U.S. Olympic hopefuls in non-revenue sports receive the support they need to succeed.