Make it make sense: College football players can be paid millions, but Michael Zheng can’t collect a $150,000 check from Aussie Open?

When the dust settles on Michael Cheng’s tennis career, he probably won’t be losing any sleep over the $150,000 he won’t be allowed to take home at the 2026 Australian Open.

Barring some catastrophic injury or other life-changing event, the 21-year-old American, who won back-to-back NCAA singles titles with Columbia University, will spend the next decade playing on the ATP Tour and earning millions.

advertise

But it’s not necessarily about money. It’s about principles. The NCAA’s rules limiting athletes from being able to reimburse “actual and necessary expenses” when participating in professional events like tennis or golf need to be lifted.

Zheng lost to No. 32 seed Corentin Moutet in the second round on Wednesday, withdrawing early in the fourth set due to a left leg injury. Unless plans change, he will return to the United States to finish his final semester at Columbia and play the team’s season this spring before becoming a full-time pro.

He won three qualifying matches before beating top 15 player Sebastian Korda in the first round of the main draw to claim the bulk of the $150,000 purse.

That’s because the NCAA, despite removing all restrictions on college athletes’ ability to profit from their marketing rights, has yet to change its arcane rules for collecting bonuses.

advertise

“I’ll talk to our coach and try to figure out if I can accept the bonus, what’s going on with the bonus,” Zheng told reporters after Koda’s win. “I’ll sort it out after the game.”

Although Zheng added that he had heard “rumors” that he could receive the money as he is in the final semester of his senior year, an NCAA spokesperson simply pointed Yahoo Sports to the rule book, which seems clear:

“In tennis, after initial full-time college enrollment, an individual may receive a bonus based on placement or performance in athletics. Such bonuses shall not exceed actual and necessary expenses and may only be provided by event sponsors. The calculation of actual and necessary expenses shall not include fees or expenses of anyone other than the individual (e.g., coaching fees or charges, expenses of family members).”

If you want to draw a line between getting paid for “marketing rights” (which is the basis of the whole NIL game) and getting paid for playing college sports, then this rule might make sense.

advertise

But let’s use common sense to explain.

On Monday night, we watched a College Football Playoff championship game in which two teams could earn more than $20 million combined. Miami quarterback Carson Beck reportedly made $4 million on his own through a variety of sources, including a revenue-sharing agreement with the university.

Technically, Zheng had the same opportunity to negotiate the NIL deal. He can always go to a racquet sponsor, a shoe sponsor, an apparel sponsor, and if he wants, get some revenue share cash or change through a college-affiliated collective.

But in the real world, forgive us for the NCAA still trying to draw a distinction between the huge sums of money given to high-profile football and basketball players and people like Zheng who are allowed to take cash from professional tennis tournaments just because they won a few matches.

advertise

If anything, Zheng should be rewarded for still wanting to play collegiate tennis this spring rather than going straight to the ATP Tour, where he’s already ranked No. 145 in the world.

Here’s the reality for Zheng: By playing his final semester at Columbia instead of next month’s pro events in Dallas, Delray Beach and Acupulco, which could have allowed him to move further up the rankings and automatically qualify for the other three majors, he could be spending more money in the short and long term than he brought home from Australia.

Then again, what’s the point in 2026 when the original intention of these rules – to separate amateurism from professionalism – has been shattered? What harm would it do if a handful of outstanding college tennis players or golfers happened to qualify for a major, or even earn a wild card to their hometown pro tournament, where they would receive real prize money?

Heck, if the tournament had some imagination, they could even rejig the way bonuses are given to college players and call it “zero bonuses.” Look, it’s legal! What if not? Good luck in court.

advertise

In fact, the issue has made its way to the courts as former women’s college tennis stars Reese Brandtmeier (North Carolina) and Maya Union (Texas) filed a class-action lawsuit over bonuses they couldn’t earn as amateurs. Recent court filings indicate a settlement could be reached sometime in January or February, The Carolina Journal reported in December.

Hopefully, a potential settlement will include the NCAA repealing these rules entirely. They no longer make sense.

Think of it this way. Zheng has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is good enough to be a part of the Pro Tour. In addition to his results at the Australian Open, he won three ATP Challenger level events last year, which is similar to AAA baseball. He is ready.

advertise

But he hasn’t gone down that path yet for one reason: He wants to complete a degree in psychology at Columbia University. Yes, he is attending college to get an education. What a novel concept.

At the same time, we have football and basketball players applying for sixth and seventh years of eligibility — not for academic reasons, but because if you’re not good enough to make it to the NBA or NFL, college becomes an ATM with virtually no restrictions.

When asked before Monday’s national championship game if he had classes last week, Baker responded: “No classes, I graduated two years ago.”