If someone were asked 10 years ago what one of the highest-paying jobs was, a college athlete would never be heard as an answer. That is, until NIL rules changed the game in 2021.
On July 1, 2021, the NCAA changed its regulations, allowing college athletes to earn money off their NIL (Name, Image and Likeness). Since NIL first made its debut, the following years have been nothing short of dramatic and chaotic in the college athletics recruiting world. What was meant to empower athletes has instead created a recruiting landscape defined by bidding wars, blurred rules and escalating chaos.
Collegiate athletes were not always able to earn a profit from playing their sport. Prior to NIL, college athletes were limited to scholarships, while the schools were the ones benefiting from ticket sales, broadcasting services and merchandise. Athletes were forbidden from making deals that profited from their popularity, so they forfeited their NIL rights by signing with college sports teams.
The NCAA then decided that it would change its rules to restore NIL rights. The original goal of NIL was to expand opportunities for student-athletes by allowing them to obtain endorsements, partner with brands, and connect with fans and audiences beyond the field or court. That being said, many argue that these goals were not fully met or achieved. NIL has shifted to become more transactional, leaving many athletes constantly comparing prices and worrying about income rather than the actual sport.
Many athletes choose to hire professionals to assist in marketing, legal issues, tax laws and other business topics. After NIL became such a vital part of an athlete’s choice of schools, recruiting discussions with recruits often begin with NIL opportunities. While it does make sense that a college student, let alone a college athlete, would choose a school that would provide a higher income, these choices may not always align with the athlete’s best interests or what is necessarily right.
Some of the highest-paid NIL athletes are Arch Manning (Texas, $6.8 million), Bronny James (USC, $6.1 million) and Carson Beck (Miami, $4.3 million).
Along with competitive pay to the athlete, schools are also required to be more competitive with each other. The divide between large and small programs continues to widen and become more apparent. Schools with smaller athletic programs often do not have even close to the amount of NIL money that larger schools have. Larger schools with wealthy donors and extensive alumni networks can facilitate multimillion-dollar NIL opportunities that smaller schools are unable to meet.
Power Four conference schools with established donor networks have an advantage because they are able to outpay smaller schools for top players and secure more NIL resources due to being in wealthier areas, which in turn causes programs without established collectives to struggle to compete. This creates a competitive imbalance between schools. Many college athletes abandon their current schools to obtain better NIL opportunities at a different school. Smaller schools often lose their best players to bigger schools.
A survey conducted in 2022 found that 90% of athletic directors were concerned about NIL, which led to the belief that an unregulated NIL market, as well as transfer rule changes, would lead to an increase in scandals and unjust recruiting strategies. Former TCU head football coach Gary Patterson expressed concern about risking the loss of 25-30 players per year due to NIL-related transfers. One major challenge for smaller schools is competing financially, though factors like development and coaching still play a role.
The inequality does not stop between schools; it also extends to different sports. Football and basketball players are known to make larger incomes than athletes in other sports. These sports are more publicized and have larger fan bases than others. NIL deals are also mainly limited to Division I players, leaving NIL opportunities for Division II and Division III athletes sparse.
There are also many recruiting violations that can take place. Some schools illegally pay athletes to come to their school but disguise the payment as some sort of NIL deal. Coaches and boosters are not permitted to directly pay recruits, so this is seen as bribery, which is against NCAA rules. People have used NIL rules as a scapegoat to “cheat the system.” College football’s top donors have distributed five-, six- and seven-figure payments to student-athletes under the guise of endorsement opportunities and appearance fees. While these payments are legal within NCAA guidelines, they do not support the original goals of NIL.
NIL has proven to have its flaws in the realm of college athletics. There is a misconception that, through NIL, good teams are able to be bought, which contradicts the appeal of college sports: that any team is able to rise to the top with good coaching and player development. Without the NIL system we know today, there would be a more honest, even chance for every school and athlete to compete at their greatest potential. The line between college and professional athletics continues to become blurrier as time goes on.
