Amidst Cornell’s 41-21 Homecoming loss to the Colgate Raiders, some students have echoed renewed calls for the university to offer athletic scholarships in an effort to expand recruitment. This question reignited debate over a long-standing question in the Ivy League: should student-athletes be offered scholarships?
The Ivy League’s ban on athletic scholarships traces back to the mid-20th-century Ivy Group Agreement for the purpose of preserving academic integrity and amateurism. The agreement was centered on the idea that athletes should attend for the same reason as every other student: to receive an education, not compensation. Unlike other Division I schools that recruit and offer aid on the basis of academic merit or athletic performance, the Ivies are committed to, and only consider, scholarships on the grounds of demonstrated financial need.
However, in March of 2023, former Brown basketball players Tamenang Choh and Grace Kirk filed a class action lawsuit, challenging the Ivy League’s collective ban on athletic scholarships following NCAA v. Alston (2021) and the new NIL reforms allowing athletes to profit from their names and likenesses. They alleged that the Ivy Group Agreement violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, arguing that the coordinated refusal to offer athletic scholarships amounted to price fixing and restrained competition for talented student-athletes. The plaintiffs sought both injunctive relief (to allow scholarships going forward) and monetary damages.
The Ivy League universities countered that the policy was consistent with their academic mission and commitment to amateurism, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to define a coherent market or demonstrate true anticompetitive harm.
On October 9, 2024, the judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated evidence of a restricted market or proven that the Ivy policy constituted an unlawful agreement. Additionally, elements of their complaint were filed too late under the statute of limitations; in antitrust cases, the statute of limitations is typically four years. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending as of this article.
For Cornell, the implications of this case have brought the broader debate over athletic scholarship into a more modern context, one that is now shaped by rising tuition and shifting expectations for college athletes. Within the Cornell community, opinions remain mixed on whether the Ivy model still serves its purpose.
Some argue that because Cornell cannot offer athletic scholarships, their sports teams struggle to succeed compared to universities that can; however, that sentiment is not necessarily true. The fact that Cornell’s Men’s Lacrosse was the NCAA Division I champion in 2025 refutes it outright. Still, the claim holds some weight when looking beyond the standout programs. Not every sport has the same recruiting base or financial demographics, and the absence of athletic scholarships affects them unevenly. Athletes in programs like lacrosse, rowing, and hockey—all of which have successful or relatively strong programs—often come from higher-income households, where the appeal, and even expectation, is to attend an Ivy. Burdensome financial concerns are nonexistent or simply not prioritized. For those families, tuition is a non-issue.
Those circumstances do not extend to all the programs. Football, for example, is categorically different. Typically, the sport consists of players hailing from more socioeconomically diverse backgrounds, with a noticeably higher share of recruits coming from lower-income families. For a lot of these players, especially those not chasing a pro career, football is their way into college, particularly at larger or more prestigious universities where scholarships make that path possible.
Now, as mentioned earlier, Cornell does meet 100% of demonstrated financial need for all admitted undergraduate students, so, hypothetically, these students could still attend. However, that is not the same as having a guaranteed athletic scholarship, which is given on the basis of performance or recruitment value, while need-based aid depends on a detailed financial assessment that can fluctuate year to year. So even though Cornell technically removes financial barriers, it does not provide the same certainty or symbolic value that athletes could receive at universities offering scholarships.
So does the Ivy model start to demonstrate its limitations here? Arguably, still no. If a potential player facing financial hardship wishes to attend an Ivy because it provides an opportunity for both personal and professional growth, then that player—like any other admitted student—can take every effort to earn admission. While critiques of Ivy League admissions are valid and deserve separate attention, they fall outside the scope of this discussion.
Those reading this article hoping to see a conclusion that student-athletes are not special because they loathe their fast scooters and enviable red backpacks (this coming from a non-athlete myself) will come away disappointed. The truth is, Ivy League athletes often, and uniquely, go on to outperform their peers professionally.
A recent Harvard Business School paper examined the long-term professional outcomes of Ivy League athletes from 1970 to 2021. The findings were distinctive: Ivy League athletes earn higher cumulative wages and attain greater seniority over their careers compared to non-athletes. While both groups perform similarly during the first five years after graduation, the gap widens significantly over time, with athletes ultimately pulling ahead in both earnings and leadership attainment. They’re also more likely to pursue MBAs, work in finance, and hold managerial or executive roles.
The study also tested whether these advantages could be explained by wealth or academics alone. It found that while athletes from traditionally higher-income sports like rowing or fencing perform slightly better than their peers, all Ivy League athletes—regardless of sport—significantly outperform non-athletes in the long run. In fact, athletes from more diverse programs or less “niche” sports with lower academic admission thresholds (like football) demonstrated the highest labor market outcomes on average. Overall, this pattern suggests that socioeconomic status and pure academic ability cannot fully account for the “athlete achievement premium.”
The authors then go on to conclude that if the mission of elite universities is to prepare students to positively impact the organizations they join, considering athletic performance in admissions may actually serve that goal. Leadership, teamwork, resilience, and strategic thinking—all traits cultivated through collegiate athletics—likely play a key role in bringing about advantageous outcomes, even if they’re not directly measured.
So, while the Ivy model may appear restrictive on the surface, the long-term outcomes suggest otherwise. For many of these athletes, the real “payment” comes later in the form of the skills, connections, and leadership experience they build. Ultimately, Cornell and the rest of the Ivy League remain firm in their stance against offering athletic scholarships, and do not appear likely to change that policy any time soon—and that may or may not be a good thing.
So next time you’re sitting in your Oceanography class—or any similar lecture—spot one of those red backpacks (pro tip: you can find a Lacrosse player within the first three rows), take a seat nearby, and maybe strike up a conversation. You never know—they’re statistically more likely to be your boss someday.
