Flock Talk: Wages of Wins

 

“Money talks – but culture stays.”

We have talked a lot about the evolving economics of college football on Flock Talk for the last decade plus — and most recently, we’ve talked about how Oregon is not using “moneyball” concepts to shape its strategy on the recruiting trail. Instead, the Ducks have leaned into a more principled — and frankly, more sustainable — approach that emphasizes internal culture over external flash. That means rewarding players already in the program, rather than offering top-dollar NIL packages to unproven high school stars.

It’s a philosophy that may cost Oregon a few headline-grabbing commitments. But it also may prevent the kind of internal chaos that destroys locker rooms from the inside out. The question often asked by fans is simple: Why not just pay what it takes to land elite recruits? The answer is more complicated — and deeply rooted in the economics of organizational behavior.

---

The Wage Compression Problem

In the corporate world, the practice of paying new hires more than experienced workers in similar roles is nothing new. It’s also a proven recipe for internal friction. According to a recent study published in the Harvard Business Review by Visier researchers and leading organizational behavior experts, that friction leads to attrition — especially among high performers. In short, when new employees are brought in at a higher salary than existing employees, the best and most experienced people are often the first to leave.

The same concept applies in college football.

When a program pays top-dollar NIL packages to incoming freshmen who have never taken a snap, it often creates tension in the locker room. Veteran players, who’ve bled for the team and sacrificed years developing in the program, begin to question their value. Their performance might be stronger, but their paycheck doesn’t reflect it. Eventually, they start to wonder: Why not enter the portal and get paid somewhere else?

This is called wage compression — and Oregon is working hard to avoid it.

---

Inside the Numbers: What the Research Shows

Visier’s data, pulled from over 4 million employee records from nearly 100 companies across North America and Europe, found that employees whose pay was adjusted within a month of a new, higher-paid hire stayed on average 2.5 years longer. When companies waited six months, that number dropped to 18 months. When they waited a full year, those employees left in just over a year.

Now apply that to a college football roster.

Say a five-star freshman quarterback signs a massive NIL deal before setting foot on campus. Meanwhile, a junior defensive tackle who has started 25 straight games is getting half the compensation. The defensive tackle starts doing the math. Other programs are calling. Opportunities exist. Eventually, he enters the portal. And now the program has to pay again to replace the experienced player it just lost.

And here’s the kicker: the research showed high performers — the most valuable employees — were 35% more likely to leave under those conditions. That’s exactly what Oregon wants to avoid.

---

Culture Over Chaos

Oregon’s NIL strategy is structured to reward buy-in and development. Rather than leading with six-figure deals for high school seniors, the Ducks prioritize competitive NIL packages for players who have already earned their place in the program. That includes on-field performance incentives, leadership bonuses, and team-based revenue sharing.

The goal isn’t to suppress value — it’s to avoid the downstream effects of inequity.

You can call it old-school if you want. But in a sport increasingly dominated by financial arms races, it’s a deliberate — and potentially market-savvy — move.

Because make no mistake: Oregon isn’t cheap. They’re just strategic.

---

“Why Not Just Pay Them All?”

Of course, one counterargument is this: if you’re worried about equity, just raise everyone’s compensation when you land a big recruit. If the top quarterback gets $500k, give everyone else a raise too. Problem solved, right?

Not quite.

First, that math doesn’t work. With 85 scholarship players and dozens of staff, the economics of blanket raises are unsustainable. The wage escalation would spiral quickly. Programs without unlimited war chests — and yes, even Oregon has a ceiling — would burn out fast.

Second, it’s not just about the money. It’s about trust.

The Harvard Business Review article notes that even in workplaces without full pay transparency, the mere knowledge that someone new is being paid more leads to disillusionment. That’s especially true when the perception of fairness is lost. Once players believe their contributions are being undervalued — or worse, ignored — trust erodes. Performance dips. Leaders check out. And the cultural rot begins.

---

Protecting the Locker Room

Oregon’s approach is rooted in protecting team dynamics. By structuring NIL so that players grow into their value, the Ducks are creating an incentive structure that reinforces the behaviors they want: work ethic, commitment, leadership, performance.

Instead of transactional relationships, they’re fostering long-term alignment.

Could they land more five-star recruits by opening the vault? Probably.

But how many of those five-stars would stick around if the team culture imploded? How many would thrive if the veterans resented them? How many games would be lost because the foundation underneath the hype wasn’t strong enough to support the weight?

That’s the bet Oregon is making — that culture is a more valuable currency than cash alone.

---

The Agility Factor

The Harvard Business Review piece also suggests another key: agility. Organizations that can respond quickly to equity issues retain more top performers. Oregon is working to create that agility through performance-based NIL structures, flexible opportunities, and relationships that go beyond pure economics.

They’re not waiting for the problem to boil over. They’re trying to anticipate it — and respond in real-time.

It’s not perfect. No system is. And yes, the Ducks have lost out on a few elite players who opted for bigger checks elsewhere. That’s the cost of discipline. But the payoff may come in the form of a healthier locker room, stronger retention, and a more united team on Saturdays.

---

Final Thoughts

The economics of college football have changed forever. NIL isn’t going away. But just because every player now has a price tag doesn’t mean every program needs to chase the highest bidder.

Oregon’s approach might frustrate some fans in the short term. Especially when a five-star recruit picks a different school. But over time, the Ducks are betting that a stable, equitable, and performance-driven model will win out.

They’re not trying to be the richest program in America. They’re trying to be the smartest.

And that’s the kind of moneyball that makes real sense.

---