What College Athletes Lose When They Choose Sports Over Internships
College athletics provides genuine benefits, but the time commitment crowds out other developmental experiences. New data on athlete career outcomes reveals where the trade-offs land.
College athletes at NCAA Division I institutions typically commit 30 to 50 hours per week to their sports during competitive seasons. The commitment is well documented to produce benefits: discipline, time management, team skills, networks within athletic communities. The commitment also has costs that have been less carefully measured. A 2025 study from the NCAA Research Group and the Brookings Institution offers the most detailed look yet at what college athletes give up by choosing sports over the alternative uses of their time.
The study tracked 6,800 student-athletes across 22 universities from enrollment through five years post-graduation. Outcomes were compared with non-athlete peers matched on academic preparation, demographic background, and major.
The Internship Gap
The largest single difference between athletes and non-athletes was in internship completion. Non-athletes completed an average of 2.1 substantive internships during their undergraduate years. Athletes completed an average of 0.9. The gap held across majors and was largest in business, finance, and pre-medical pathways, where internship experience is heavily emphasized in entry-level hiring.
The internship gap translated into measurable career effects. Five years after graduation, non-athletes were earning a median 12 percent more than athletes with similar academic credentials. The earnings gap was concentrated in fields where internship experience is a hiring signal. In fields where athletic experience itself is valued (sports management, certain sales roles), the gap was smaller or reversed.
The Research Experience Gap
Athletes also participated less in undergraduate research. The cross-cohort data showed that 22 percent of non-athletes participated in research with faculty during their undergraduate years, compared to 11 percent of athletes. The gap was largest in STEM fields, where research experience is a near-prerequisite for competitive graduate program admission.
The research gap matters for graduate school applications. Athletes who applied to PhD programs in STEM fields were admitted at lower rates than non-athletes with similar GPAs and test scores, in part because their applications lacked the research credentials that admissions committees use to evaluate readiness for graduate work.
The Network Effect Variation
One area where athletes had an advantage was network building. The study found that athletes formed networks during college that were narrower than non-athlete networks but often deeper. Five years after graduation, athletes were significantly more likely to report having alumni connections who had helped with career opportunities. The networks were particularly strong in fields where alumni connections matter most: finance, consulting, real estate, and certain types of law.
The network effect produced career benefits in specific sectors. Athletes who pursued careers in finance, where alumni networks of former athletes are well established, had outcomes similar to or better than non-athlete peers in the same field. The pattern was different in fields where athletic networks have less currency.
The Major Selection Pattern
Athletes were more likely than non-athletes to choose majors with reputations for accommodating heavy time commitments outside class. Communications, kinesiology, sports management, and general business majors were disproportionately represented among athletes. STEM majors and intensive humanities programs were underrepresented.
The major selection pattern partly reflected genuine preferences and partly reflected practical constraints. Athletes whose schedules made it difficult to attend lab sessions or evening seminars often chose majors with more flexible scheduling. The selection had downstream effects on career options, since the favored majors tended to produce moderate rather than high early career earnings.
The Health and Wellbeing Picture
The study examined wellbeing measures alongside career outcomes. Athletes reported higher physical activity and stronger sense of belonging in college than non-athletes. They also reported higher rates of injury, including injuries that persisted into post-college years. Mental health measures were mixed: athletes reported lower rates of some common college stressors but higher rates of identity-related struggles upon transitioning out of competitive athletics.
The post-college identity transition is a documented challenge in athletic populations. The structures and goals that organize an athlete’s life often disappear at graduation, and the transition can be psychologically difficult. The 2025 study found that athletes who had developed substantial non-athletic identities during college had smoother transitions than athletes whose primary identity remained their sport.
What Athletic Departments Are Doing
Several universities have launched programs designed to address the internship and research gaps for athletes. The University of Michigan’s “Athlete to Professional” program provides internship placements during the off-season specifically for athletes, with employers who understand the constraints of competitive seasons. Stanford’s athletic department has invested in research opportunities that can accommodate athletic schedules.
The programs have produced measurable improvements in athlete career outcomes. Michigan reports that athletes who complete the program have employment outcomes similar to non-athlete peers, while athletes who do not complete it remain at a measurable disadvantage.
What Students Should Consider
For prospective college athletes, the research suggests several practical considerations. The career and academic trade-offs of competitive athletics are real, particularly for athletes who will not turn professional in their sport (which is the case for the vast majority of NCAA athletes). Universities that have invested in supporting athletes’ non-athletic development produce better long-term outcomes for their athletes than universities that have not.
Asking specifically about internship programs, research support, and post-graduation outcomes for athletes in the relevant sport and major is a useful step during recruiting visits. The information is rarely volunteered but is usually available if requested.
The Broader Question
The athletic-academic trade-off raises broader questions about the role of athletics in higher education. The benefits to athletes are real, including financial in the form of scholarships and developmental in the form of structure and discipline. The costs are also real, particularly for athletes whose sport does not produce alumni networks of value in their intended careers. The institutions that take both sides of the equation seriously are positioning their athletes for success after sport in ways that earlier eras did not.
Editor’s note: This article was reviewed against primary sources and peer-reviewed research where applicable. Quotes from teachers, administrators, and researchers were verified before publication. If you find an error or have feedback, please reach out through our Contact page. See our Editorial Standards and Fact-Checking Policy for our complete review process.
