Why Higher Education Can't Scale: The Structural Problem No One Is Talking About

Higher education is asking the wrong question about growth.

The conversation often starts with audience expansion. How do we reach new learners? Where are the untapped markets? What new programs should we build?

Those questions assume demand is the constraint.

It often is not.

A more useful question is whether demand is already present but difficult to see, access, or convert. In other words, whether what looks like weak demand is actually a visibility, packaging, or pathway problem.

Professional sports offers a clear lens into this distinction. It operates in an environment where demand is measured continuously, tested publicly, and translated into revenue in real time. When something works, it scales quickly. When something fails, it becomes obvious.

That makes it a useful reference point for institutions trying to understand where growth actually lives.

The Shift From Passive Access to Active Choice

For decades, the NFL benefited from a distribution model that required very little intentionality from its audience. Games were embedded in the cable bundle. Viewership was inherited rather than actively chosen.

Streaming disrupted that model.

When ESPN launched as a standalone product, fans had to decide to subscribe. That required awareness, motivation, and perceived value. Content that had once been delivered by default now had to be selected.

This shift from passive access to active choice is not unique to sports.

Higher education is experiencing the same transition. There was a time when learners operated within a narrower set of options. Degrees were easier to evaluate, pathways were more standardized, and institutions held a clearer position in the market.

That environment has changed. Learners now navigate a wide range of formats, providers, and price points. The decision to enroll is no longer assumed. It must be earned.

The NFL’s response was structural. In 2022, it gave individual teams the ability to claim and develop international markets, allowing them to retain the revenue they generated. This aligned market development with direct incentive. Teams that invested in building new audiences benefited from that growth.

The lesson is not about international expansion. It is about incentive design. When the people closest to demand have both responsibility and reward, growth efforts become more serious and more sustained.

In higher education, market development is often distributed, but the financial upside remains centralized. That creates a disconnect between effort and return, which slows meaningful expansion.

The Difference Between Missing Demand and Hidden Demand

The rapid growth of women’s sports over the past several years is often framed as the discovery of a new audience. That framing is misleading.

Most of that audience was already there.

Research shows that the vast majority of women’s sports fans already consume sports content. Growth came from improving access, visibility, and infrastructure rather than uncovering an entirely new market.

For years, women’s sports operated within systems designed for men’s leagues. Broadcast slots were limited. Marketing was minimal. Distribution was inconsistent. Demand existed, but the system did not capture it effectively.

Recent growth reflects a change in that system.

The same dynamic appears in higher education. Institutions frequently interpret low enrollment as evidence of low demand. In many cases, it reflects friction.

Working adults who cannot find programs aligned to their schedules. Transfer students who encounter opaque credit pathways. Alumni who are interested in returning but have no structured entry point. Employers who need talent solutions that are not packaged in a way they can engage with.

Demand exists. It is not being converted.

Growth, in this context, is less about finding new audiences and more about making existing demand visible and actionable.

Where Growth Actually Lives

Growth in higher education is often framed too narrowly. It is not limited to new programs for new audiences.

It operates across four dimensions:

• new value for new audiences

• new value for familiar audiences

• familiar value for new audiences

• familiar value for familiar audiences

This framework expands the field of view.

A new credential designed for working professionals is one form of growth. Repackaging an existing offering to better serve alumni is another. Improving transfer pathways can unlock demand that already exists but has not been realized.

When institutions focus only on expansion into entirely new markets, they overlook opportunities already within reach.

The question becomes whether the institution can identify where demand is constrained and reduce the friction preventing it from converting.

Why Internal Capability Matters More Than External Spend

When organizations identify growth opportunities, the instinct is often to invest externally. New hires, new facilities, new initiatives.

Data from European football suggests a different pattern.

Clubs that consistently outperform their financial resources tend to invest heavily in internal development. They build systems that cultivate talent, integrate it effectively, and generate value over time. This reduces reliance on expensive external acquisitions.

The advantage is not cost reduction. It is capability development.

Higher education faces a similar choice. Institutions can continue to rely on external hiring to solve strategic challenges, or they can invest in developing the capabilities already present within their teams.

The latter creates more durable advantage.

Strategy Requires Discipline, Not Just Ideas

Identifying growth opportunities is rarely the limiting factor. Executing them within an existing organization is.

Many institutions carry accumulated priorities, legacy processes, and internal norms that make change difficult. New strategies are layered on top of old systems rather than replacing them.

In other sectors, meaningful transformation often requires removing elements that no longer align with the direction of the organization. This is less about performance and more about alignment.

In higher education, this is one of the most difficult steps. It requires clarity about what the institution is becoming and a willingness to stop supporting what no longer fits.

Without that discipline, growth strategies remain conceptual.

The Risk of Misaligned Incentives

The sports industry also offers a caution.

The rapid expansion of sports betting has introduced new revenue streams that influence how organizations operate. In some cases, those incentives begin to shape priorities in ways that create long-term risk.

The issue is not the revenue itself. It is whether the source of that revenue begins to alter what the organization values and how it behaves.

Higher education faces similar decisions. New revenue opportunities are emerging across online programs, corporate partnerships, and alternative credentials.

Each one should be evaluated beyond financial return.

Does it strengthen trust?
Does it align with institutional identity?
Does it improve outcomes for learners?
Does it build long-term capability?

Growth that weakens these elements creates problems that surface later.

The Strategy Takeaway

The sports world is not a perfect comparison, but it is a revealing one.

It highlights several patterns that translate directly:

• Growth increasingly depends on intentional choice rather than passive access

• Much of what appears to be low demand is actually constrained demand

• Internal capability often determines long-term performance more than external investment

• Strategy requires removing misaligned elements, not just adding new ones

• Revenue opportunities must be evaluated for alignment, not just scale

The question for higher education is not whether growth is possible.

It is whether institutions are willing to examine where demand already exists, how their current systems limit it, and what changes are required to unlock it.

If you are navigating questions of growth, prioritization, or institutional direction, this is the work The Education Strategist is built to support.

Join the Insider List

Subscribe here to receive future insights on higher education growth, lifelong learning, strategy, and what comes next.