February 26, 2026
Most departments are already doing meaningful work in financial education. The gap that continues to show up is not effort or intent. The gap is consistency, relevance, and execution support. Athlete schedules are tight. Coach influence is real. Athlete financial situations are increasingly uneven because of revenue share and NIL. The goal of these considerations is to help departments make programming easier to run, easier to attend, and more likely to change behavior.
A program improves when someone clearly owns it end to end. Ownership is more than booking speakers. It includes the annual plan, coordination with coaches, partner management, and the process for helping athletes between sessions. Without a clear owner, programming becomes event based and inconsistent.
Consistency also requires a predictable rhythm. When sessions are planned early and placed into the team calendar, they are more likely to survive the season. When they are added late, they become optional and are often deprioritized. A small number of short touchpoints each semester tends to work better than one large event.
A single program for all athletes struggles because needs differ widely. “Personal” Finance is unique to each individual, their own situations, backgrounds and goals. Some athletes have no income beyond basic support. Others may have meaningful revenue share and NIL earnings. Consider a tiered model that matches complexity. A baseline track can serve the entire roster. A second track can serve athletes with meaningful income or higher decision frequency. A third track can serve athletes with high or variable income, complex tax situations, or greater family obligations. Tiering improves relevance and reduces the feeling that content is not for me.
Relevance is the strongest predictor of engagement. Athletes tune out when the content feels generic or repetitive. They lean in when the examples feel current and specific. Most departments can improve impact by repeating a small set of fundamentals more often while refreshing the scenarios. The fundamentals do not change. The examples do.
It also helps to focus on decisions athletes are making right now. Cars, leases, credit cards, lifestyle pressure, taxes, and cash flow systems come up repeatedly. When athletes can apply the lesson this week, behavior change becomes more likely.
Time is the limiting factor, even when the content is strong. Coach partnership is the lever that makes time available. A program scales faster when coaches view it as part of athlete development rather than an optional add on. In some environments, coaches tightly manage player time and push back on recurring sessions. In others, leadership is more likely to set a firm expectation that ongoing education is a requirement. Either way, the planning approach is the same. Make it easy for coaches to support by keeping sessions short, predictable, and aligned with team priorities.
A single format misses too many athletes. Consider a delivery ladder that starts with short, immediate content that sparks interest. Follow with short workshops that teach the core concepts. Then provide optional small group or one on one support for athletes who want help implementing. This structure respects time constraints and creates a path from awareness to action.
Psychological safety is also part of delivery. Many athletes will not ask questions in front of teammates. A program becomes more useful when athletes have a safe way to get help. Office hours, small group breakouts, or confidential intake forms can increase participation and honesty.
Taxes show up repeatedly because leaders care about outcomes. Many departments would benefit from defining one or two clear outcomes, such as improving filing completion and reducing mistakes. Then design the support around those outcomes. Multiple touchpoints during filing season can help. Clear reminders help. Access to help when an athlete is stuck helps most.
Large purchases and major commitments drive many of the biggest mistakes. Athletes often make decisions quickly and under social pressure. Consider giving athletes a simple decision framework they can use before they sign or buy. This is also a place to address scams, fraud, and common traps that target student athletes.
Departments want proof that programming is working, and athletes want privacy. A workable path is aggregated measurement. Simple confidence and stress check ins can show trend without exposing details. Anonymized summaries of common questions can help tailor programming. If summaries are tagged by sport and gender, it should be done in a way that cannot identify individuals. Clear boundaries also increase trust, especially when outside partners are involved.
Outside partners can add value, but clarity matters. Athletes and families respond better when education is clearly separated from product selling. If partners participate, define their role and the boundaries. Also consider building a small referral network for specialized needs, such as taxes, legal questions, insurance, and complex financial situations. This prevents staff from improvising and gives athletes a clear path to help.
To make these recommendations more practical, I am expanding discovery to include athletes and coaches directly. I am seeking conversations with athletes who are receiving revenue share and athletes who are not, so I can better compare needs and decision patterns. I am also seeking conversations with coaches to understand what they will support, what they worry about, and what delivery formats are realistic.
If you are willing to support this effort, introductions to a small number of athletes and one or two coaches would be meaningful. These are short discovery conversations. They are not sales calls. The goal is to learn and to ensure any future programming guidance reflects what athletes and coaches are actually experiencing.