Texas $47.5 Million 2026 CFB Roster Valuation: Player NIL Income, Tax Drag & Net Reality

Texas woke up in a strange financial realization on Sunday, the day after losing to unranked Oklahoma. The Longhorns no longer own the No. 1 ranking in college football, but they still own the most valuable roster in the country (including Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia).

Oklahoma’s 27-24 Red River upset handed Texas its first loss of the season and dropped the Longhorns from No. 1 to No. 7 in the AP Poll. Arch Manning threw for 260 yards and three touchdowns, but two interceptions helped swing a game Texas had led 17–7 at halftime.

That result is actually the perfect place to begin a roster-valuation discussion. Money can acquire talent and retain an elite quarterback. It can also buy experience through the portal, protect premium positions and build depth that most programs cannot afford.

Money cannot however, guarantee execution on Saturday.

APSM’s current dataset values Texas’ football gross roster value at ~$47.5 million across 78 priced players, ranking the Longhorns No. 1 nationally (financially). Approximately 58% of that value is tied to retained players, 25% to portal additions and 17% to recruits.

The $47.5 million valuation represents the estimated open-market value attached to the players themselves and is a gross estimate that changes slightly week-by-week as market conditions vary due to performance, game results, or even social media trends and bad press.

It is not a disclosed university payroll, and it should not be mixed together with every dollar Texas spends operating football. Coaching salaries, recruiting departments, travel, medical care, facilities, staff, nutrition, equipment and administrative expenses are all real costs. (Business Expenses)

APSM separates those financial layers because spending $50 million to operate and support a roster does not mean $50 million reached the athletes wearing the uniform.

Texas players can earn through direct institutional revenue sharing, legitimate third-party NIL agreements, licensing, appearances, sponsorships and other commercial relationships. The source of the money can change; the athlete’s Net Reality does not.

Gross income still has to survive federal taxes, income taxes when present, applicable employment or self-employment taxes, plus representation costs and personal financial decisions before it becomes usable capital.

And yesterday’s loss makes the broader point even clearer:

Roster value measures the financial market for talent. The scoreboard measures what that talent does with it.

The first APSM projection below begins with Texas’ current $47.5 million roster valuation and applies the same illustrative 7% annual market-growth assumption used throughout the 2026 roster series.

It is not a prediction that Texas will literally spend $93 million on football players in 2036. It shows what continued expansion of NIL, direct revenue sharing and elite-player demand could do to the market value of a roster that is already the most expensive in the country.

Texas $47.5 Million Roster Is Built Through Three Markets (Retained – Portal – Recruits)

Texas’ current roster is not as simple as just Arch Manning plus eighty other football players. It is sports program portfolio assembled through three different acquisition markets.

~$27.7 million, or 58%, of the valuation represents retained players.
$12.0 million, or 25%, of the valuation represents portal transfers.
$7.8 million, or 17%. of the valuation represents recruits

That 25% portal number is particularly important.

Texas did not enter 2026 trying to purchase an entirely new football team, but Steve Sarkisian’s staff was willing to spend aggressively where proven college production could reduce roster risk.

The Longhorns were one of the biggest spenders during the transfer portal window this past offseason, being able to snag some of the most targeted players available:

• Cam Coleman arrived from Auburn.
• Hollywood Smothers entered the backfield.
• Rasheem Biles strengthened the defense.
• Hero Kanu added another experienced defensive piece.

The economics of those acquisitions are different from high-school recruiting. A recruit offers upside, eligibility and the possibility that a program develops value internally. A transfer generally arrives with more college film, more performance data and a much clearer market price.

Retention creates the third problem. Once Texas recruits and develops a player such as Colin Simmons, Trevor Goosby or Arch Manning, the program cannot assume that athlete stays simply because he originally signed with Texas. The portal turned retention into an annual allocation decision.

Texas’ 2026 construction therefore follows a pretty simple financial cycle:

recruit talent → develop value → retain proven assets → acquire missing pieces → compete → repeat

The Oklahoma loss does not invalidate that model. It demonstrates why the model exists without guaranteeing the result.

Texas’ Top 5 2026 CFB Player Valuations

Texas’ five highest-valued athletes currently account for approximately $15.51 million, or ~32.7% of APSM’s $47.5 million roster valuation.

Unlike a roster whose financial concentration sits almost entirely at quarterback, Texas has seven-figure value distributed across quarterback, receiver, offensive tackle and edge.

Arch Manning | $6.8 Million | Quarterback

Arch Manning remains the financial center of Texas football.

APSM currently estimates Manning’s open-market value at approximately $6.8 million, based on averages from gross estimates found from official university reports when available, as well as aggregators like The NIL Standard, On3, Yahoo and other college football roster databases.

This market valuation makes him the most valuable player on the Texas roster and one of the most commercially valuable athletes in college sports.

Manning entered the Oklahoma game as the quarterback of the No. 1 team in America. He left Dallas having thrown for 260 yards and three touchdowns, but also two interceptions, including a fourth-quarter pick-six and another turnover immediately before Oklahoma’s winning field goal.

The interesting financial question is not whether one bad result makes Manning “worthless.” Obviously it does not. Other factors other than direct revenue-sharing determine a players’ market value, including;

Texas exposure, quarterback scarcity, future professional potential, national media attention, the Manning family brand and an established endorsement portfolio all contribute to his commercial market.

That is why athlete valuation is closer to pricing an asset than reading yesterday’s fantasy stats.

APSM examined that distinction with Manning before, when questions about his early starting performance created speculation around whether endorsement value would eventually decline. The market since then has provided a useful answer: football performance matters, but elite athlete brands can contain several independent sources of value.

Cam Coleman | $3.0 Million | Wide Receiver

Cam Coleman represents a different type of asset than Manning because Texas did not develop him from the beginning of his collegiate career.

The Longhorns purchased access to an already-proven SEC receiver through the transfer market, and his estimated $3 million valuation makes him the second-highest-valued player on the roster.

His valuation represents both current production and acquisition cost. Texas did not have to wait several years to discover whether Coleman could play against SEC competition. It bought a more established asset with a higher existing market price.

Coleman also participates in Nike’s Blue Ribbon Elite NIL program, showing why player market value and outside sponsorship income should remain separate. A $3 million roster valuation estimates what the player is worth in the football market; a commercial relationship monetizes the athlete’s name and audience through another channel.

Colin Simmons | $2.5 Million | EDGE

Colin Simmons is currently Texas’ highest-valued defensive player at approximately $2.5 million. The Oklahoma game showed why premium edge defenders command seven-figure college valuations.

Quarterbacks are expensive because they control offensive production. Offensive tackles are expensive because they protect quarterbacks. Edge rushers become expensive because their job is to destroy that protection and change games without touching the football.

Texas can spend millions on offensive stars and still assign $2.5 million of value to the player whose job is to wreck another team’s most valuable asset.

Dia Bell | $1.6 Million | Quarterback

Freshman quarterback Dia Bell rounds out Texas’ top five at approximately $1.6 million. Bell may be the most interesting player on this list from a pure portfolio perspective because his current value is largely attached to future optionality. Arch Manning is a senior. Bell is a freshman.

Texas has seven figures of estimated market value attached not only to its current quarterback but also to a potential future one. That is what modern roster building requires at premium positions. A program cannot wait until it’s best player leaves before beginning to price the replacement.

Bell also entered Nike’s Blue Ribbon Elite program, giving him commercial exposure before becoming Texas’ primary quarterback. In financial terms, Texas has both current production and future quarterback equity sitting on the same roster.

Trevor Goosby | $1.6 Million | Offensive Tackle

Trevor Goosby carries an estimated value of approximately $1.61 million, making him the highest-valued offensive lineman in Texas’ current top five. He entered the season with national recognition, including first-team preseason All-America honors, alongside Manning and Simmons.

Goosby’s value makes more sense when viewed through the rest of the balance sheet. Texas has $6.8 million of market value attached to Manning. It has another $3 million attached to Coleman.

Protecting those assets is part of the investment.

An offensive tackle is not merely being valued for individual statistics. His position directly influences whether several other highly valued pieces of the offense can function properly.

That makes line spending a form of asset protection.

Texas’ $47.5 Million Roster Is Separate From Revenue Sharing

The 2026–27 institutional revenue-sharing cap is approximately $21.58 million per participating school under the House-settlement structure. That number should not be stacked directly on top of Texas’ $47.5 million roster valuation and described as a fictional $69 million football payroll.

They measure different things.

Texas’ $47.5 million represents the estimated open-market value of football players. The $21.58 million represents a schoolwide institutional compensation ceiling distributed across athletes and sports.

Third-party NIL exists outside both categories when legitimate commercial agreements satisfy the applicable rules. That accounting distinction becomes especially important with Texas because the program operates on a financial scale where every number sounds like payroll if it is stripped from its context.

It is not.

Texas Athletics Is a $340+ Million Business

Texas’ college football roster sits inside one of the largest athletic department portfolios in all of collegiate sports.

Texas’ FY2025 EADA disclosure reported approximately $341.8 million in total athletic-department revenue and roughly $272.8 million in expenses. Football alone generated approximately $171.7 million in reported revenue against about $70.5 million of sport-specific expenses.

That context is useful because it explains why roster valuation and program economics should never be treated as synonyms. The athletic department is the enterprise and football is its largest revenue engine.

The roster is the collection of player assets required to operate that football product. Those players may collectively carry almost $48 million in market value without every dollar of Texas Athletics’ remaining revenue becoming athlete compensation.

Facilities still cost money.
Travel costs money.
Administration costs money.
Medical care, recruiting, nutrition, equipment and staff all cost money.

Revenue is not player income. Program spending is not roster value.

And roster value is not net worth.

Third-Party NIL Makes Texas More Than a Revenue-Sharing Program

Texas athletes also operate inside one of the strongest commercial environments in college sports. Nike’s Blue Ribbon Elite NIL initiative included several Longhorn football players, including Coleman, Simmons and Bell, while Texas has separately created corporate relationships designed to produce additional athlete-marketing opportunities.

That commercial infrastructure matters because an athlete’s economic value is no longer limited to what the university can distribute directly. Players can generate income through sponsorships, appearances, licensing, merchandise, digital content and independent brand relationships while simultaneously receiving institutional compensation.

The tax treatment of those income streams can also differ substantially. Some athlete compensation may be reported as W-2 wages, while many independent NIL agreements and personal-service arrangements are reported as 1099 income and treated as self-employment income.

For those earnings, the athlete may be responsible for both the employer and employee portions of Social Security and Medicare taxes rather than having an employer withhold its share. The standard self-employment tax rate is 15.3%, subject to the applicable Social Security wage base, Medicare rules and the athlete’s actual net self-employment earnings.

That makes business structure, expense tracking and tax planning materially more important than simply looking at the gross value of an NIL agreement.

A player earning money from several independent commercial relationships may be dealing with federal income tax, state obligations where applicable, self-employment taxes and estimated quarterly payments across multiple sources of income. The IRS specifically advises athletes to track expenses and where NIL services are performed because both deductions and multistate filing requirements can affect the eventual tax result.

For a player such as Manning, that distinction is enormous. The roster can price his market value at $6.8 million, while commercial agreements create the actual cash flow tied to the value of Arch Manning the brand.

The uniform creates exposure, but the athlete still has to monetize it.

Steve Sarkisian’s ~$11.05 Million Salary Is Separate From Player Value

Texas’ investment in football extends well beyond its roster. Steve Sarkisian’s current contract runs through the 2031 season, with 2026 guaranteed compensation reported at approximately $11.05 million, rising annually toward $12.3 million in the final year.

That salary does not belong inside Texas’ $47.5 million roster valuation.

But comparing the figures reveals the scale of the organization. Texas is paying more than $11 million annually to the executive responsible for managing a player portfolio valued near $48 million inside a football operation that generated more than $170 million in annual revenue.

Texas’ loss to Oklahoma does not suddenly erase that investment. It increases the scrutiny attached to it. The more capital a program deploys, the less tolerance the market has for underperformance. (ROI)

Texas’ 2026 Tax Environment

Texas gives high-income athletes one of the clearest geographic tax advantages in college sports: there is no individual state income tax. The Texas Constitution prohibits the legislature from imposing a tax on individual net income.

That does not make NIL income tax-free however, which is something that many athletes should understand: Federal income tax still applies, and, depending on how compensation is structured, Social Security, Medicare or self-employment taxes can also apply.

Representation (agent fees), also costs money. And don’t forget about that there might also be multi-state commercial activity (jock tax) owed, potentially creating additional filing obligations.

But holding the gross income constant, Texas removes one deduction that exists in states such as California, New York, Oregon, Minnesota and Georgia. That difference becomes significant once annual athlete compensation reaches seven figures.

Using the APSM Net Income Calculator, a $2 million gross NIL example with a 3% representation estimate, 0% personalized expenses and Texas as the primary jurisdiction models approximately $1.18 million of retained capital, or about 58.8% of gross. (net income)

The same gross number does not produce the same Net Income for every athlete, as there are many variables that go into net reality.

Texas Sales Tax

Texas shifts more of its tax burden toward consumption. The state sales-and-use tax rate is 6.25%, and local jurisdictions can add another 2%, producing a maximum combined rate of 8.25%.

For a high-income athlete, that creates a different form of financial drag. Income tax reduces money when it is earned. Sales tax reduces money when it is spent. A $100,000 vehicle, expensive electronics, furniture, clothing and other taxable consumption still create additional tax costs even when the athlete owes Texas no individual income tax.

That is why “no state income tax” should never be translated into “Texas is tax-free.” It is not.

Texas Property Tax

Real estate creates the opposite side of the Texas tax story. Texas has no state property tax, but local governments, school districts and special districts impose their own property taxes.

In Austin, the City of Austin’s FY2026–27 property-tax rate is approximately $0.579948 per $100 of taxable value. Travis County and the local school district impose separate rates on top of that.

For athletes, this is the distinction that matters: Texas may be extremely attractive when income is earned, while ownership costs can still become substantial when that income is converted into property.

A seven-figure athlete considering an Austin house therefore has to evaluate property tax, insurance, maintenance and financing alongside the absence of state income tax. Tax efficiency on salary does not automatically make every real-estate purchase efficient.

Austin Cost of Living & Real Estate

Austin is also not the inexpensive college market it once was.

Zillow’s August 2026 data placed the average Austin home value at approximately $497,418, down 3.7% over the prior year. Average rent was approximately $1,586 per month.

Redfin reported a roughly $550,000 median sale price over the three months ending August, down about 0.9% year-over-year, while estimating Austin’s overall cost of living around 3% below the national average.

That combination creates an interesting environment for a young athlete. Housing is not cheap, but current softness gives buyers more leverage than during Austin’s pandemic-era boom.

For an athlete expecting to stay in Texas long term, property ownership can make sense. For someone likely to enter the NFL, transfer, or relocate within a year or two, liquidity may be far more valuable than forcing an expensive purchase simply because the money exists.

The Net Reality of real estate begins after the down payment.

Texas Longhorns Roster Net Reality

Because private contracts, tax filings and representation agreements are not publicly available, APSM cannot determine the exact take-home income of any Texas player from a market valuation alone.

The standardized APSM roster model therefore uses the same framework across programs:

• 2026 progressive federal income-tax brackets
• applicable employment or self-employment/FICA treatment
• the athlete’s 2026 primary-state tax structure
• a 3% contract-negotiation / representation estimate
• 0% invented personalized expenses

The final point matters as there may be one athlete who spends $40,000 operating his NIL business; while another might spend $300,000 on an asset or potentially on liabilities if that athlete is financially uniformed.

Those individualized expenses belong inside the APSM Net Income Calculator, where the reader can actually change them, rather than inside a roster article where APSM would have to make them up.

At the standardized $2 million Texas benchmark, the model retains ~58.8% of gross value. Because federal taxation is progressive, the exact retention percentage changes slightly with income size. That is why the player table below uses player-specific modeled deductions rather than multiplying every athlete by one fake flat percentage.

Texas’ five highest-valued athletes carry approximately $15.51 million in combined gross market value. Under the standardized APSM methodology, that corresponds to ~$9.03 million in retained capital.

These are not reported salaries, or statements about anyone’s private tax return. They are the financial bridge between the gross headline number and the money potentially available to save, invest and build generational wealth with long after retirement from sports.

Converting Texas NIL Income Into Long-Term, Generational Wealth

Texas’ tax advantage becomes most valuable only after the athlete does something productive with the retained capital.

Arch Manning provides the largest example. Under the standardized model, his $6.8 million gross valuation corresponds to approximately $3.92 million of modeled net capital. The interesting number is not $6.8 million.

It is what can happen to the money that survives. If only 20% of that modeled net capital were moved into a diversified long-term investment vehicle (index fund), approximately $784,000 could begin compounding immediately. At an illustrative 8% annual return, that one investment could grow to roughly $1.69 million over ten years without another contribution.

No NFL contract is required for that original capital to continue working.
No second Texas NIL season is required.
No future sponsorship is required.

That is why age may be the most underappreciated financial advantage in NIL. A college athlete can begin compounding serious capital before most people have established their first meaningful investment account.

Austin Real Estate

Real estate creates another option, although Texas requires more nuance than simply saying “buy property.”

An athlete with millions of dollars of retained earning power could potentially make a substantial down payment, purchase a primary residence conservatively, acquire an investment property or simply remain liquid while waiting for a better opportunity.

Austin’s current housing market makes patience especially relevant. Values are below year-ago levels, meaning a buyer should evaluate rental economics, property taxes, insurance, financing and holding period instead of assuming that Texas population growth guarantees immediate appreciation.

The asset still has to make financial sense.

What One Season of Texas NIL Income Could Become if 20% of Net Take-Home Was Invested Over the Next Decade

The cleanest way to show the long-term power of Texas’ current earning environment is to eliminate the future from the model entirely. Assume 2026 is the only major football income these five athletes ever receive.

No future Texas NIL payments.
No additional endorsements.
No NFL salary.
No additional capital contributions.

Each athlete invests 20% of his modeled 2026 retained capital once, then leaves that money invested at an illustrative 8% annual return through 2036. That isolates the value created by one earning window.

• For Manning, the initial modeled investment is approximately $784,000.
• For Coleman, approximately $349,000.
• For Simmons, approximately $292,000.
• Goosby and Bell each begin around $190,000.

The point is not to predict their future net worth. It is to measure how much financial momentum can exist before a professional career even begins.

Why This Data Matters

Texas’ loss to Oklahoma makes this section more meaningful, not less. The Longhorns assembled the most valuable roster in the country and still lost. That tells us something important about both football and finance. Capital creates opportunity. It does not eliminate risk.

A school can acquire talent without guaranteeing a championship. An athlete can acquire millions of dollars without guaranteeing wealth, but the same principle applies on both sides.

For the players, a seven-figure college earning window can completely rewrite the financial starting point of a future NFL career. An athlete who arrives in professional football with hundreds of thousands of dollars already invested does not need his rookie contract to become the beginning of wealth creation.

The eventual rookie contract can become another contribution to a balance sheet that already exists, and if professional football never comes, the college money still mattered.

Temporary athletic income can create permanent capital.

Financial Implications of Texas CFB Roster’s Net Reality for Athletes, Agents and Sponsors

For Athletes

Texas shows why gross compensation alone is an incomplete measure of financial opportunity. The lack of state individual income tax can leave more capital available than the same contract in many other competing markets (especially in the SEC), but federal taxes, FICA, representation, spending and ownership costs still matter.

Both The University of Texas’ and the State of Texas’ financial advantage are real; However, winning championships in the gold-rush era of NIL still requires discipline to convert that advantage into generational wealth.

For Agents

The current Longhorn roster shows why representation increasingly crosses several financial systems at once.

An agent may be dealing with university revenue sharing, transfer leverage, independent NIL agreements, brand negotiations, tax structure and eventually an NFL contract.

The athlete is becoming a business long before turning professional.

For Sponsors

Texas offers one of the strongest intersections of university brand power and individual athlete reach in college sports.

The same environment capable of creating a $6.8 million quarterback valuation gives national brands access to athletes operating inside one of the country’s most recognizable sports properties.

For Texas

The Oklahoma loss is the reminder every expensive roster eventually receives. Texas can spend aggressively, retain stars, recruit nationally and operate the most valuable roster in the country. The money improves the probability of competing. It does not purchase the final score.

Bottom Line

Texas currently carries approximately $47.5 million in estimated 2026 football roster value, the highest valuation in college football, with roughly 58% tied to retained players, 25% to portal additions and 17% to recruits.

Around that roster sits one of the largest financial engines in college athletics: more than $341 million in departmental revenue, roughly $172 million of football revenue, an approximately $21.58 million schoolwide revenue-sharing environment, an $11 million head coach and a third-party NIL ecosystem capable of producing national brand partnerships.

And Texas still lost to Oklahoma.

That does not mean roster valuations are meaningless. It means they have to be understood correctly. A roster valuation measures the economic value attached to talent. It does not measure chemistry, play-calling, turnovers, injuries, execution or what happens with nineteen seconds left in Dallas.

For athletes themselves, the lesson goes deeper.
A $6.8 million valuation is not $6.8 million of wealth.

Gross has to become income.
Income has to survive taxes and fees.
Retained capital has to survive lifestyle.

And whatever remains has to be converted into assets before temporary earning power can become lasting financial security.

That is the Net Reality.

Texas 2026 CFB Roster FAQs

What is Texas football’s 2026 roster worth?

APSM’s current dataset values Texas at approximately $47.5 million across 78 priced players, ranking the Longhorns No. 1 nationally and No. 1 in the SEC by estimated roster market value.

Who are Texas’ five highest-valued football players in 2026?

Quarterback Arch Manning leads Texas’ 2026 roster at an estimated $6.8 million, while the Longhorns’ five highest-valued players combine for approximately $15.51 million, or 32.7% of APSM’s $47.5 million total roster valuation.

• Arch Manning (QB): $6,800,000 (14.3%)
• Cam Coleman (WR): $3,000,000 (6.3%)
• Colin Simmons (EDGE): $2,500,000 (5.3%)
• Trevor Goosby (OT): $1,612,328 (3.4%)
• Dia Bell (QB): $1,600,000 (3.4%)

The concentration at the top reflects Texas’ premium on quarterback play and other high-value positions. Manning alone represents more than 14% of the estimated roster value, while Coleman and Simmons add another $5.5 million across wide receiver and edge.

Is Texas actually paying its football players $47.5 million?

No. The $47.5 million figure represents estimated open-market player value rather than a disclosed university payroll. Direct institutional revenue sharing, legitimate third-party NIL agreements and operating expenses are separate financial categories.

How much does a $2 million Texas NIL athlete keep under the APSM model?

Using APSM’s standardized 2026 framework with progressive federal taxation, applicable self-employment/FICA treatment, 0% Texas individual income tax, a 3% representation estimate and 0% personalized expenses, the $2 million benchmark models roughly $1.18 million of retained capital, or about 58.8% of gross. The actual result can vary based on income structure, filing status and individual deductions.

What is Texas’ income tax rate for athletes in 2026?

Texas does not impose an individual state income tax, giving Longhorn athletes a meaningful state-level advantage compared with players earning similar income in higher-tax jurisdictions.

That does not make NIL or revenue-sharing income tax-free. Texas athletes can still owe federal income tax, applicable employment or self-employment taxes, representation costs and potentially taxes to other states when income is earned or services are performed outside Texas. For high-earning players, the absence of a Texas individual income tax can nevertheless produce a meaningful difference between gross earnings and modeled retained capital.

Next Reads

• Alabama $31.9 Million 2026 CFB Roster Valuation: Player NIL Income, Tax Drag & Net Reality
• Georgia $30.1 Million 2026 CFB Roster Valuation: Player NIL Income, Tax Drag and Net Reality
• Ole Miss $35.5 Million 2026 CFB Roster Valuation: Player NIL Income, Tax Drag & Net Reality
• Ohio State $38 Million 2026 CFB Roster Valuation: Player NIL Income, Tax Drag and Net Reality
• Texas State Athlete Taxes

Disclaimer: This article contains general financial information for educational purposes and does not constitute professional advice. APSM estimates are derived from publicly available information, tax assumptions, finance modeling, and industry-standard fee structures. Actual earnings may vary based on residency elections, private contract provisions, image/media rights agreements, bonuses, and tax filings.