Teams Accept Likely Loss For Guaranteed Payment

By the Editorial Team · Friday, September 11, 2026

Smaller college football programs like Ball State and Kent State are increasingly relying on guaranteed payments, sometimes exceeding a tenth of their athletic budgets, to play and typically lose against powerhouse teams such as Ohio State. While these matchups provide crucial funding to sustain smaller schools’ athletic programs, they also highlight the widening financial and competitive disparities within the sport, raising concerns about fairness and player welfare.

College football continues to evolve rapidly, with longstanding traditions giving way to new financial realities and shifting priorities. One enduring aspect, however, remains common practice: smaller programs accepting guaranteed payments to play—and predictably lose to—major powerhouses.

On a recent Saturday, Ball State traveled to Columbus to face Ohio State, receiving $1.9 million for the matchup. The Buckeyes dominated the game, winning 56-3, illustrating the mutual understanding underlying such agreements. Ohio State secured an additional lucrative home game with a near-certain victory, while Ball State obtained a significant infusion of cash vital to its athletic department budget.

Ball State is far from alone in this arrangement. Kent State, for example, earned $1.3 million for a 57-0 loss at South Carolina and is slated to receive similar guarantees for upcoming games at Ohio State and South Florida. The combined payments total $4.4 million, equating to roughly 13% of Kent State’s athletic department’s annual operating expenses. These matchups, often called guarantee games, effectively function as fundraising opportunities for smaller schools, leveraging the on-field imbalance to secure essential financial support.

For elite programs, these games represent a low-risk strategy to add another home date, generating revenue from ticket sales, concessions, and media contracts without forfeiting future scheduling control. Conversely, for smaller programs, guarantee games provide crucial funds that help cover scholarships, travel costs, salaries, facilities, and sometimes support non-revenue sports. The arrangement is widely understood by all parties before contracts are signed.

Despite the financial rationale, the dynamic raises questions about player welfare and fairness. While athletic departments benefit from the payments, the football players confront overwhelming opponents, often suffering lopsided defeats that can draw public scrutiny and social media criticism. Although name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals and direct payments to players have increased in college sports, the compensation from guarantee games flows solely to the institutions, not the athletes on the field.

The financial pressures are more acute at lower-tier programs. In the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS), for example, median athletic department expenses significantly outpace revenue, with deficits averaging nearly $17 million annually. Against this backdrop, a single guarantee payout may represent a substantial portion of a school’s total athletic income.

While some critics describe the guarantee game model as exploitative, eliminating such arrangements could force many smaller programs to reduce budgets, curtail travel, or cut teams entirely, risking opportunities for hundreds of student-athletes.

Occasionally, smaller schools defy expectations. Northern Illinois upset Notre Dame in 2024, Memphis beat Florida State, and Appalachian State famously defeated Michigan in 2007 after accepting guarantee payments. Similarly, in Week 1 of the current season, UMass stunned Rutgers as underdogs, leveraging a $1.55 million payout and a rare opportunity to compete and win on a big stage.

These upsets, however, are exceptions. Most guarantee games unfold as anticipated, with the larger school securing victory and the smaller school benefiting financially. The landscape may become more challenging as power conferences increase league games and prioritize strength of schedule for playoff consideration, potentially reducing opportunities for guarantee game scheduling. Simultaneously, rising demands for player compensation may constrict budgets further.

As college football increasingly mirrors professional sports in contracts, revenue sharing, and economic disparities, the guarantee game stands out as a candid acknowledgment of the financial imbalance. One side purchases a near-certain result; the other accepts competitive risk in exchange for vital funding. The on-field outcome may favor the powerhouse, but the financial ledger often tells a more complex story.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.