BYU-I Sports

College athletics is undergoing its most dramatic transformation in history. Once guided by tradition and patchwork rules, the system now faces instability, mounting lawsuits, and the absence of clear governance. Universities, conferences, and athletes navigate uncertain terrain with no shared framework to ensure fairness or stability.

At the center of this upheaval is the growing call for collective bargaining. Far from turning athletes into professionals or dismantling education-based competition, collective bargaining simply provides structure. It allows athletes to negotiate with system managers—schools, conferences, or national governing bodies—over issues like health, education, and financial rights. The result is enforceable agreements that create fairness and accountability, rather than the uncertainty of litigation.

The contrast with federal intervention is stark. Years of congressional hearings and executive actions have produced little clarity. Lawsuits, such as the House v. NCAA settlement, have yielded progress but not permanence. The $2.8 billion settlement spreads NIL revenue over a decade but lacks labor protections and health standards. Because it was not collectively bargained, it leaves schools vulnerable to further lawsuits and billions in potential liability. In other words, litigation may win short-term relief but does not fix systemic instability.

Collective bargaining, by contrast, offers predictability and shared accountability. It has long been the model for professional sports, balancing the rights of players with the needs of teams and leagues. Applied to college athletics, it would unify standards across conferences, reduce costly lawsuits, and rebuild trust between athletes and administrators.

Skeptics argue such a system cannot work in higher education’s decentralized environment. Yet professional leagues already operate under collective bargaining despite differing state laws and local conditions. The same framework can be adopted in college sports, tailored to the unique academic missions of universities.

The urgency is real. Beyond House, future litigation could carry liabilities approaching $15 billion. Institutions cannot afford to wait for Congress or courts to impose solutions. Leaders must act to stabilize the system. Athletes are organizing, administrators are acknowledging the risk, and collective bargaining is emerging as the only viable long-term path.

This turning point has implications not only for the power conferences but also for smaller schools, religious institutions, and potential new entrants into intercollegiate athletics. Which brings the conversation to BYU–Idaho.

Why This Matters for BYU–Idaho

Since discontinuing varsity sports in 2000, BYU–Idaho has emphasized academics and intramurals. The official explanation focused on cost and mission alignment, but the deeper reality is that college athletics lacked a sustainable model. At that time, the system was still rooted in amateurism, revenue imbalances, and governance structures that left smaller institutions vulnerable. For BYU–Idaho, stepping away avoided the chaos now engulfing the NCAA.

But today the landscape is different. The very instability that once justified caution now underscores the possibility of return. If athletics were reintroduced at BYU–Idaho, it would not be under the same flawed model that existed 25 years ago. Instead, it could be aligned with the emerging framework of collective bargaining, where rules are clear, protections are enforceable, and risk is managed.

For The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which oversees BYU–Idaho, this is critical. The Church already demonstrates through BYU in Provo how a private entity can balance religious mission with athletic competitiveness. Collective bargaining would provide the legal cover and structural clarity to ensure that athletics at BYU–Idaho could operate without exposing the institution—or the Church—to endless litigation.

Moreover, a collectively bargained system could allow schools like BYU–Idaho to enter athletics on sustainable terms. Costs could be contained, health and education standards enforced, and competitive balance protected. Rather than replicating BYU’s model of big-time Division I athletics, BYU–Idaho could find a home in Division II, Division III, or the NCCAA, participating in a reformed system that values fairness and student experience over unchecked spending.

A Window of Opportunity

The return of athletics to BYU–Idaho would not be nostalgia alone. It would enrich student life, strengthen ties with alumni, and build community identity. Most importantly, it could be done in a way that honors the university’s mission. Collective bargaining offers the framework to make that possible by reducing legal exposure, clarifying expectations, and protecting all parties involved.

The system of college athletics is at a crossroads. Leaders can cling to outdated amateurism, inviting more lawsuits and financial peril, or embrace collective bargaining as the path to stability. For BYU–Idaho, this moment represents more than just a national turning point. It represents the chance to re-enter athletics at the right time, under the right system, with protections and principles that align with both education and faith.

College sports will not return to what they once were. But they can move forward into a more accountable and sustainable era. And if BYU–Idaho chooses to step back onto the field, court, or track, it can do so knowing the foundation is finally strong enough to support the mission and values it has always prioritized.