si
In the current landscape of college football and college athletics, financial resources often dictate success. A recent report from The Athletic indicates that Kansas football is lagging behind many of its peers in terms of roster spending, which could spell trouble for the Jayhawks.
The report, published Wednesday morning by staff writers at The Athletic, provides estimates of how much each Power 4 college football program spent on its 2026 roster. To compile these figures, the writers reportedly consulted more than 70 anonymous sources across the sport, including coaches, general managers, agents, and others.
According to the report, the goal was to gather as many independent, reliable estimates as possible from individuals both inside and outside programs—those who negotiate deals, coach on the sidelines, and observe games from luxury suites. At least one employee from each school was contacted to offer information about their roster budgets.
Unsurprisingly, the programs spending the most—$30 million or more—are among the top-performing teams in the nation. This group includes Georgia, Indiana, Alabama, Notre Dame, Ohio State, and other college football powerhouses.
Among the 67 teams currently in a Power 4 conference (Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, ACC), Kansas ranked No. 62, with an estimated roster expenditure of $15-17 million for this year. The only teams estimated to spend less than KU are Arizona, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Duke, and Boston College.
Within the Big 12, Kansas placed 12th out of 16 teams, ahead of the three aforementioned Big 12 schools. These figures represent the funds available to assemble the 2026 roster, excluding any player income not managed or controlled by the football program, such as endorsements with national brands. The money comes from a mix of athletic department revenue, outside booster donations, and other sources that vary by school.
Key Analysis
Kansas's position in these rankings is not entirely unexpected. The university has significant financial commitments to football facilities and surrounding buildings through the Gateway District Project. Additionally, the basketball program, a blue blood with the nation's top recruit on its roster, demands substantial funding.
However, the Jayhawks are not far behind some of their Big 12 counterparts. Oklahoma State, UCF, and Houston are all listed slightly higher than KU, but by no more than an estimated $3 million. The data also underscores the media rights disadvantage faced by Kansas and other Big 12 schools. Twelve of the 16 Big 12 teams are listed below the $20 million mark, highlighting the gap compared to peers in the Big Ten and SEC.
Kansas's spending does not reflect a lack of donor support as much as it illustrates the program's difficult balancing act between limited extra income from the conference and the athletics department's current deficit from the stadium and Gateway District. Consequently, head coach Lance Leipold and his staff must be especially diligent in recruiting the right players and developing them once on campus. Until KU Athletics' finances stabilize or national guardrails on roster spending are implemented, this approach may be the only way for the Jayhawks to remain competitive in the current era of college football.