Florida A&M University secured $760,000 for its football game against the University of Miami, a financial package that represents the kind of guaranteed money that has become increasingly attractive to HBCU athletic departments. But the 77-7 loss has cast a shadow over that transaction, prompting serious questions about whether the monetary gain justifies the competitive and reputational toll of such matchups.
The debate is not new to HBCU athletics. Historically, money games—contests where smaller programs travel to face Power Five opponents for a guaranteed payout—have been a way for HBCU athletic departments to generate revenue and fund their operations. The financial reality of running a collegiate athletic program means that many HBCUs depend on these paydays to sustain scholarships, facilities, and coaching staff. From a purely budgetary standpoint, $760,000 is significant.
Yet the scoreboard tells a different story. A 77-7 loss is not merely a defeat; it is a public statement about competitive disparity. For student-athletes, it raises questions about the value of playing in a game where the outcome is virtually predetermined. For the institution, it raises questions about institutional pride and the message sent to recruits, alumni, and the broader HBCU community.
Edward Waters has recently joined this conversation, questioning whether such matchups are financially and competitively worthwhile. That institutional voice adds weight to a discussion that has simmered for years within HBCU athletic circles. The question is not whether HBCUs should ever play Power Five opponents—competitive growth sometimes requires challenging oneself against elite programs. The question is whether the financial incentive structure has become so lopsided that it encourages games that serve neither the competitive development nor the dignity of HBCU programs.
There is also the matter of what $760,000 represents in the broader context of HBCU athletic budgets. Is it enough to justify a season-defining loss? Does it offset the psychological impact on a team, the recruiting implications, or the wear and tear on student-athletes who know they are entering a game they cannot win? These are not rhetorical questions—they are the ones HBCU athletic directors and presidents are now grappling with.
The conversation extends beyond any single game or institution. It touches on the structural inequities in college athletics, the financial pressures facing HBCUs, and the choices available to athletic leadership when those pressures mount. Some will argue that the money is necessary and that HBCUs must take these games to survive. Others will argue that there are better ways to generate revenue without sacrificing competitive integrity.
Why this matters: The HBCU athletic community is at a crossroads. These decisions about which games to play and for what price shape not only the financial health of institutions but also the experience of student-athletes and the perception of HBCU programs nationally. How HBCU leadership responds to this debate will influence the trajectory of Black collegiate athletics for years to come.