Please be reasonable. College football players are paid millions, but Michael Jenn can’t get a check for $150,000 at the Australian Open?

To sum up Michael Jen’s tennis career, he probably won’t lose much sleep over the $150,000 he won’t be allowed to take home at the 2026 Australian Open.

Barring some catastrophic injury or life-altering incident, the 21-year-old American, who won back-to-back NCAA singles titles at Columbia University, will earn millions of dollars over the next decade on the ATP Tour.

advertisement

However, this is not necessarily a question of money. It’s about principles. It would also eliminate NCAA rules that limit reimbursement for “actually necessary expenses” when athletes play in professional events such as tennis and golf.

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

And he’ll do it without spending most of the $150,000 he earned by winning three qualifying matches and upsetting former Top 15 player Sebastian Korda in the first round of the main event.

That’s because, even though the NCAA has lifted all restrictions on college athletes’ ability to acquire marketing rights, it has yet to change its arcane rules for collecting prize money.

advertisement

After Korda’s victory, Chung told reporters, “I will talk to my coach to find out if I will be allowed to receive the prize money and what will happen to the prize money.” “I’ll think about it after the tournament is over.”

Zheng added that he’s heard “rumors” about being able to raise money since he’s currently in the final semester of his senior year, but an NCAA spokesperson only directed Yahoo Sports to the rulebook, which seems clear.

“In tennis, after first full-time college enrollment, an individual may receive prize money based on placement or performance in track and field competitions. Such prizes may not exceed actual necessary expenses and may only be provided by the sponsor of the event. The calculation of actual necessary expenses shall not include expenses or fees of anyone other than the individual (e.g., coach fees and expenses, family expenses).”

This rule might make sense if you want to draw a clear line between receiving money for “marketing rights,” which is the basis of the entire NIL farce, and receiving money to play college sports.

advertisement

But let’s break this down from a common sense perspective.

On Monday night, we watched the College Football Playoff championship game, and both players probably earned more than $20 million combined. Miami quarterback Carson Beck reportedly earned $4 million himself from multiple sources, including revenue-sharing agreements with universities.

Technically speaking, Mr. Zheng has the same opportunity to negotiate a NIL deal. He can always go and get racket sponsors, shoe sponsors, apparel sponsors, and if he wants, he can get income-sharing cash or NIL money through university-related consortiums.

But here in the real world, I’m sorry to roll my eyes at how the NCAA is still trying to differentiate between the huge sums of money available to prominent football and basketball players, and players like Chung who are allowed to take home cash from professional tennis tournaments because they win matches.

advertisement

Rather, Chung should be rewarded for the fact that she wants to continue playing college tennis this spring, rather than immediately joining the ATP Tour, where she has already climbed to No. 145 in the world.

That is the reality of Chung’s situation. By playing his final semester at Columbia University rather than next month’s pro events in Dallas, Delray Beach and Acapulco, he could move further up the rankings and automatically qualify for the other three Grand Slams, and he could end up spending more money on himself than he takes home from Australia, both in the short and long term.

Then again, how does that make sense in 2026, when the original purpose of these rules to distinguish between amateurism and professionalism has already been shattered? If a few good college tennis players or golfers happen to qualify for a major or earn a wild card to play in a local professional tournament, what harm could it do in taking home actual prize money?

Heck, if tournaments had some imagination, they could even restructure the way they award money to college players and call it a “NIL bonus.” Hey, it’s legal! What if not? Good luck in court.

advertisement

In fact, the issue is already in court thanks to a class-action lawsuit led by former women’s college tennis stars Reese Brantmeyer of North Carolina and Maya Joynt of Texas over uncollected winnings from their amateur days. The Carolina Journal reported in December that recent court filings suggest a settlement could occur in January or February.

Hopefully, a settlement can be reached where the NCAA completely repeals these rules. It doesn’t make sense anymore.

Think about it this way. Zheng has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is capable of competing on the Pro Tour. Beyond his performance at the Australian Open, he won three ATP Challenger-level events last year, which are similar to AAA baseball. he’s ready.

advertisement

But he hasn’t gone down that road yet for one reason. That means I want to get a degree in psychology from Columbia University. Yes, he is attending college to get an education. It’s a really innovative concept.

Meanwhile, football and basketball players are applying for sixth and seventh years of eligibility, not for academic reasons, but because college has become an ATM with few restrictions unless they’re good enough to play in the NBA or NFL.

Asked before Monday’s national championship game if he had classes last week, Beck replied, “I didn’t have any classes. I graduated two years ago.”