College soccer is undergoing a wave of proposed reforms designed to modernize its structure, enhance athlete development, and realign with the rapidly evolving landscape of both domestic soccer and college athletics. These recommended changes—driven largely by joint efforts from U.S. Soccer and the NextGen College Soccer Committee—point toward significant transformations in how collegiate soccer will be played, administered, and integrated into the broader American soccer pyramid beginning as early as the 2026-27 academic year.
Background: Why Reform Is Needed
Pressure for change has built over the years due to several intersecting trends. College soccer remains a vital part of the U.S. soccer development ecosystem, responsible for producing many players, coaches, and administrators throughout the game’s history. However, the rise of professional development leagues (such as MLS Next and USL), wider access to elite youth systems, and substantial changes in college athletics (including the expansion of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights and conference realignment) are rendering the old model increasingly outdated. Proponents of reform argue that without modernization, college soccer risks becoming irrelevant within the nation’s soccer infrastructure.
Key Proposed Changes
1. Year-Long Academic Calendar
One of the most fundamental changes is the shift from a compressed fall season to a model spanning the full academic year—from September to April—mirroring international standards for player development and well-being. This new calendar features a two-month winter break, lending itself to better athlete recovery and academic balance.
2. Regionalization and Promotion/Relegation
Perhaps the most dramatic proposed reform is the reorganization of teams into four regionalized clusters, each hosting 50-54 programs. These clusters would themselves be divided into two tiers, with movement between tiers based on team performance—effectively introducing a promotion and relegation mechanism, unprecedented in U.S. college sports. The top tier would comprise two divisions of nine teams each, and the second division would be split geographically into four divisions of eight to ten teams.
Regionalization responds to recent conference realignments that have burdened programs with unsustainable travel (for example, East Coast teams traveling to the Midwest or further for league games). A regional model is expected to reduce travel costs, support student-athlete well-being by limiting missed classes, and restore traditional local rivalries.
3. Modernizing Eligibility and Professional Pathways
The reimagined eligibility rules propose allowing athletes who have started professional careers—such as teenagers turning pro—to return to college and compete, providing a “second chance” for those whose pro trajectories stall. Additionally, players could maintain amateur status while training with professional clubs during their college careers, expanding the development opportunities universities offer and aligning with global standards.
The recommendations include capping the number of players over 23 years old and simplifying transfer rules, aiming to keep the player pool fresh and primarily composed of those most in need of development.
4. Commercial Opportunities and Media Visibility
A further pillar relates to expanding the sport’s commercial footprint within college athletics. Recommendations focus on broadening national visibility through centralized scheduling, improved tournament structures, and strategic media partnerships to put more games—particularly playoffs and championships—on television and high-profile streaming platforms. This seeks to heighten college soccer’s brand and recruiting power to match emerging pathways like USL and NWSL.
Women’s Game: Separate, but Parallel, Changes
While the men’s game appears poised for sweeping overhaul, similar steps on the women’s side are proceeding more cautiously. Proposals include piloting an under-23 spring competition—addressing elite development outside the NCAA’s fall schedule and creating meaningful “off-season” play. However, some stakeholders have voiced concern that reforms are being developed with a male-centric lens, prompting calls for dedicated engagement with women’s coaches, athletes, and administrators to ensure equity and long-term sustainability.
Implementation Timeline and Challenges
The release of these recommendations marks the beginning of an extensive process of consultation and policy-making by the U.S. Soccer Federation, NCAA, and university leadership. While all relevant stakeholders were reportedly engaged in drafting the white paper, actual implementation could be gradual, involving pilot programs and incremental legislative proposals over the coming years.
Some observers anticipate resistance, especially from influential athletic conferences wary of giving up traditional power and autonomy or embracing a radically new structure like promotion and relegation. The precedent of the recent evolution of college football, driven by the biggest conferences being, in the opinion of many, detrimental to the sport, is a cautionary tale. The women’s game presents additional complexity, as consensus has not yet formed on the best path forward.
Core Outcomes and Goals
At the heart of these changes are three guiding outcomes:
- Financial sustainability for universities and athletic programs,
- Prioritizing academic, physical, and mental well-being of student-athletes,
- Better identification and development of players for professional and national team pathways.
Broader Context: Aligned With U.S. Soccer’s Vision
These changes arrive as U.S. Soccer seeks to deepen the integration of the college game within the broader pyramid that now features USL, MLS Next Pro, and (in the women’s game) expansion of NWSL and coming second-division pro leagues. College soccer is seen as essential for players who develop later or prefer to combine soccer with higher education, as well as for supporting the future coaching and administrative talent pipeline.
Looking Ahead
If successfully implemented, these proposals could make U.S. college soccer more competitive, developmental, and sustainable, ensuring its continued relevance amid a rapidly evolving national soccer landscape. While there will be significant obstacles in the form of tradition, logistics, and institutional inertia, the reform movement’s commitment to collaboration and gradual rollout could make seismic change realistic over the next several years.
In sum, U.S. university soccer stands at a crossroads: the proposals on the table promise a future where college soccer not only survives but thrives as a true engine for American soccer progress on campus and beyond.
Ron Stitt
Co-Founder, U.S. Soccer Parent
