The debate over how college athletes should be compensated has entered a new phase — and this time, two of the most influential figures in modern college football are aligned.
Colorado head coach Deion Sanders and retired Alabama coaching legend Nick Saban have voiced support for a straightforward idea: players should be paid directly for participating in the College Football Playoff (CFP). The proposal, shaped like the NFL’s postseason bonus model, is framed as an answer to what both coaches see as an increasingly unstable and uneven financial system around the sport.
In practical terms, the concept is simple. If the playoff is the biggest stage and the most valuable product in college football, then the athletes who play in it should share in the rewards — not through endorsements, not through booster collectives, but through a transparent playoff participation payment that rises as teams advance.
What Sanders and Saban are proposing
Sanders has argued that a playoff bonus structure could create a clearer form of “evenness” in college football. Instead of relying on the size of a school’s NIL collective, a postseason bonus would apply to teams that actually reach the playoff and would benefit entire rosters, not just a handful of marketable stars.
The plan mirrors how NFL teams award postseason bonuses — and that comparison matters because it shifts the conversation away from endorsements and toward performance-based compensation. Under an NFL-style system, each round of the postseason comes with a defined payout, with the championship winner receiving the biggest bonus. The NFL’s line between business, media, and competition has already been tested in other ways too, as seen in recent debates over Tom Brady’s role in team access and media-ownership boundaries, showing how modern sports constantly redraw “what’s allowed” as money grows.
That kind of structure is exactly what many college football stakeholders say is missing right now: predictable rules, predictable funding, and fewer backroom negotiations.
Why this is a big moment in college football politics
Nick Saban’s agreement with Sanders makes this more than just a headline. Saban has long raised concerns about the way NIL has unfolded — not necessarily because athletes are earning, but because of how unregulated and inconsistent the system has become across schools, states, and conferences.
When a coach known for defending the traditional framework of college sports supports direct postseason compensation, it signals something important: the sport’s leadership class is increasingly accepting that the old model can’t hold together the modern business reality.
College football has massive television money, expanding playoff formats, and a nonstop market for talent — yet no universal system that pays players for the product they create. That contradiction is now at the center of lawsuits, policy battles, and conference-level disputes. It’s also part of a larger trend across high-revenue industries where institutions are being pushed toward clearer disclosure and governance rules — something regulators have emphasized in areas like the SEC’s cybersecurity disclosure requirements for public companies.
The CFP money problem: huge revenue, unclear fairness
The CFP generates well over a billion dollars in annual media value across rights deals and sponsorship-driven revenue streams. Most of that money is distributed through conferences and member schools — helping fund facilities, coaching salaries, recruiting budgets, and athletic department operations.
The athletes, however, don’t receive a direct share of postseason revenue for their participation. NIL can help some players make money, but NIL is not a playoff payout system — and it doesn’t apply evenly across a roster.
This is where Sanders’ point hits hardest: the sport is swimming in cash at the top, but the system for sharing the value with players is fragmented and inconsistent. A defined postseason pay model would not solve everything, but it would be one of the clearest “you played in the playoff, you get paid” structures college football has ever had.
NIL opened the door — but it also created a new kind of inequality
Since NIL rules changed, college athletes have been able to earn from endorsements, appearances, and brand deals. For some, especially star quarterbacks and high-profile skill players, NIL has been life-changing.
But for most athletes, it hasn’t. Many players earn little or nothing, while the top few command the biggest deals. And in practice, NIL “opportunity” can be shaped by factors that have nothing to do with performance — school market size, booster funding, and how aggressively collectives operate.
That’s why both Sanders and Saban calling NIL a “mess” matters. It’s not just criticism from outside the sport; it’s a recognition from influential insiders that the current system doesn’t produce consistent fairness — and may be destabilizing competitive balance. In professional sports, we already see how tight financial constraints can shape roster decisions at the highest levels — similar to how teams manage limitations and priorities in cap-and-roster strategy discussions like the Mavericks’ roster crunch.
What a playoff bonus system could change
A CFP compensation model tied to postseason participation would likely do three things immediately.
First, it would create a direct connection between the playoff product and the people performing in it. Second, it would distribute money across full rosters, not only the few players with major NIL value. Third, it could reduce the dependence on murky booster-based pay structures by creating at least one clear compensation lane that applies to everyone on a playoff team.
It would also raise new questions: how payments are funded, who negotiates them, whether non-playoff bowl teams receive something similar, and how the model works across conferences with different revenue agreements.
The obstacles: rules, lawsuits, and what comes next
Even if the idea is popular, implementing it is complicated. College football is split across conferences, and there’s no single governing power with complete control over playoff revenue distribution. Any meaningful change would involve negotiations among conferences, the CFP structure, athletic departments, and legal constraints that are already shaping the future of college sports.
There is also the broader issue of whether direct payments tied to participation move college athletes closer to being treated as employees. That debate is already active in courts and policy discussions, and postseason pay could become another flashpoint in that fight.
Still, the proposal reflects an undeniable reality: the sport is already professional in revenue, exposure, and pressure. What’s lagging behind is the system that treats the players like partners in what they produce — a tension that echoes broader economic arguments about who benefits most when major industries surge, especially during periods of uncertainty like those described in recent coverage of market volatility and investor pressure.
What this signals about the future of college football
The biggest takeaway may not be the exact dollar figure or the precise payout design. It’s the fact that two coaches from different eras and different reputations are saying the same thing: college football needs structure, and players deserve a clearer share of postseason value.
If a playoff bonus model gains momentum, it could become the first widely accepted “direct pay” concept that doesn’t depend on endorsement branding or private booster arrangements. And if that happens, it would likely push the sport toward a more formal, more transparent compensation era — whether leaders are ready for it or not.
