By Lina Irawan 
Indeed, the financial impact of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies has been starkly uneven. A small percentage of highly visible and marketable athletes have amassed substantial wealth, leveraging their talent and social media presence to secure lucrative endorsement deals. These are the athletes whose NIL valuations frequently make headlines, commanding millions from national brands and large collectives. However, the vast majority of college athletes have experienced a much more modest financial uplift, if any at all, earning additional income that, while helpful, rarely approaches the sums seen at the top tier. This disparity is a critical aspect often overlooked in the broader discussion.
Yet, amidst these evolving financial realities, one aspect of the NIL debate remains stubbornly consistent: the vocal opposition. Critics of college students profiting from their name, image, and likeness continue to argue that athlete compensation has fundamentally corrupted the "purity" and amateur spirit of college sports. They contend that the commercialization detracts from the educational mission and transforms athletic competition into a professional enterprise, eroding the unique charm of collegiate competition.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) itself has a deep-seated and well-documented history of resisting any move towards allowing college athletes to profit from their intellectual property. For decades, the NCAA fiercely defended its amateurism rules, viewing them as central to its existence, despite facing numerous legal challenges. Even prominent political figures have weighed in, with former President Donald Trump voicing significant concerns, suggesting current NIL policies "could cause serious damage to college athletics" and issuing not one but two executive orders during his second term, titled "Saving College Sports" and "Urgent National Action to Save College Sports," aimed at addressing what he perceived as a crisis.
However, as a professor of sport management who has been studying name, image, and likeness policies since their contentious implementation in 2021, I believe many of these criticisms are rooted in misconceptions about how NIL truly operates and its broader impact. Based on my extensive research – including studies published in 2023 and 2025 – I aim to provide a clearer, evidence-based perspective on the realities of NIL in collegiate sports.
A Brief but Transformative History of NIL
The journey to NIL compensation was a protracted battle against a deeply entrenched system. For decades, the NCAA maintained strict rules prohibiting athletes from receiving any compensation beyond scholarships, asserting that such payments would compromise their amateur status. This stance was increasingly challenged in courts and state legislatures, culminating in a series of landmark events.
The most significant turning point arrived on July 1, 2021, when the NCAA, facing immense pressure and the imminent implementation of conflicting state laws, reluctantly permitted college athletes to earn income through their name, image, and likeness. This historic policy reversal marked the end of the NCAA’s long-established stance that commercial agreements threatened athletes’ eligibility. This change was not voluntary; it was a direct response to a burgeoning legal and legislative movement. Over 30 states had already passed or were poised to pass legislation that would allow college athletes to monetize and personally profit from their NIL, effectively creating a patchwork of rules that the NCAA could no longer ignore. These state laws were further bolstered by several court rulings, most notably the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021), which affirmed that the NCAA could not restrict education-related benefits for athletes, signaling a broader erosion of its anti-compensation authority.
Immediately following the policy change, athletes wasted no time in capitalizing on their newfound rights. Marketing agreements began to proliferate across the country. Early examples included Jackson State defensive end Antwan Owens’ deal with 3 Kings Grooming and Auburn quarterback Bo Nix’s endorsement with Milo’s sweet tea. The nascent NIL market quickly demonstrated its potential, especially for athletes with significant public profiles. Social media stars, such as sisters Haley and Hanna Cavinder, basketball players with a massive TikTok following, became prime targets for endorsements, swiftly securing deals with national brands like Boost Mobile and Six Star Pro Nutrition, highlighting the power of digital reach.
The emergence of NIL collectives further complicated and accelerated the landscape. These nonprofit groups, typically funded and managed by boosters, alumni, or passionate fans, were soon established to facilitate sponsorship opportunities for a school’s athletes. While initially intended to create NIL opportunities, many quickly evolved into powerful entities that effectively operated as unregulated "pay-for-play" systems, often pooling funds to attract and retain top talent. This development, while controversial, became an undeniable force in the NIL ecosystem, raising concerns about competitive balance and the spirit of amateurism.
The Limited Window for Earning
One of the most compelling arguments for college athletes to earn compensation while they are still students is the extraordinarily narrow window of opportunity they have to profit from their unique athletic skills. For generations, student-athletes have been told a sobering truth: they will likely be "going pro in something other than sports." This adage underscores the reality that their primary adult income source is highly unlikely to be from professional athletics.
The NCAA, its member universities, coaches, and athletic administrators have historically been correct in highlighting that the chances of an NCAA athlete even competing at the professional level, let alone enjoying a long, lucrative career, are exceedingly low. Statistics consistently show that less than 1% of college athletes in many sports will ever make it to the professional ranks. For example, only about 1.6% of NCAA men’s basketball players and 1.2% of NCAA football players are drafted into the NBA and NFL, respectively, and even fewer establish long-term careers.
Given these stark realities, it is entirely rational and justifiable for college athletes to seek to maximize their earnings from their athletic abilities during this brief, unpredictable window. An athletic career, particularly at the elite level, is inherently fragile, susceptible to injury, performance dips, and intense competition. Delaying potential earnings until a professional career that may never materialize is, from an economic standpoint, an irrational strategy.
This perspective is reinforced by examining the motivations of other adults in the sports ecosystem. College coaches and athletic administrators routinely pursue jobs and careers that maximize their earning potential, often commanding high six-figure or even seven- and eight-figure salaries. For instance, top football coaches at Division I schools often earn multi-million dollar contracts, and athletic directors also receive substantial compensation. It would be hypocritical, in my view, to contend that college athletes and their families should operate under a different set of economic principles, especially when their talent and labor are the central pillars supporting the entire multi-billion-dollar enterprise of collegiate athletics. For decades, these athletes, despite being the product, received little more than a scholarship, while everyone else around them profited immensely.
Benefits Beyond the Balance Sheet
While the most obvious and frequently discussed change for athletes under NIL policies is the ability to earn money, the benefits extend far beyond mere financial gain. My most recent study, conducted with several co-authors, revealed a broader positive impact on student-athletes, as observed by athletic department staff across the country.
These administrators and staff members reported a generally positive view of NIL policies, noting that college athletes engaging in NIL deals appeared to be maturing more quickly, demonstrating increased responsibility, and often partnering with charities to support worthy causes. The opportunity to earn additional income seems to have fostered a greater awareness among today’s college athletes that their marketability and reputation are directly linked to consistently reliable and mature behavior. Brands and organizations are more inclined to partner with individuals who demonstrate professionalism and integrity, thereby incentivizing these behaviors among athletes.
Furthermore, NIL has opened doors for athletes to pursue and develop skills and talents that were previously prohibited under amateurism rules. This includes starting and marketing their own small businesses while still competing as college athletes, providing invaluable entrepreneurial experience. Athletes are also gaining hands-on experience in critical life skills, such as understanding taxes, managing contracts, negotiating deals, and handling other financial matters – practical knowledge that will serve them well long after their athletic careers conclude.
While administrators in our study did express some concerns about potential harmful outcomes, such as increased pressure to excel or the emotional toll of unmet expectations for lucrative deals, they notably stated that they had not yet seen any concrete evidence of these harms materializing on a widespread basis. This suggests that while vigilance is always necessary, the doomsday scenarios often painted by critics may be overblown or at least not manifesting as acutely as feared.
Our research also underscored a crucial connection: economic well-being significantly influences other components of a person’s overall well-being, including their mental, emotional, and social health. Financial stress is a pervasive issue for many college students, and athletes are not immune. Therefore, if schools and coaches are genuinely interested in ensuring their athletes’ holistic well-being – a stated priority of many athletic departments and the NCAA – providing them with legitimate ways to earn money can play an important, even vital, part in supporting their mental and emotional health. Even relatively small financial gains, such as a few hundred or a few thousand dollars from branding opportunities, can make a profound difference to a young person, helping them cover daily expenses, support their families, or navigate unexpected costs, thereby alleviating significant stress.
Challenging the Paternalistic Attitude
The persistent hand-wringing and moral objections to paying student-athletes, in my view, are largely a vestige of a historically entrenched paternalistic mindset within college sports. This attitude often treats adult athletes as dependent children rather than independent individuals.
For instance, despite most college athletes being between 18 and 23 years old and thus legally adults, it is common for broadcasters, coaches, and even administrators to still refer to them as "kids." This infantilizing language perpetuates a narrative that undermines their agency and capacity for self-determination. A 2025 study examining nearly 100 Division I policies further exposed this paternalism, finding that teams frequently sought to control athletes and limit their autonomy in various aspects of their lives, such as dictating physical appearance (e.g., hairstyles, tattoos) or placing restrictions on when and how they could interact with family and friends. Such policies reveal a system designed more for control than for fostering the development of independent young adults.
Ultimately, these athletes are not "kids" in any legal or meaningful sense relevant to their economic rights. They are adults, many of whom come from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and have family responsibilities. The vast majority possess a very limited and fleeting amount of time to legitimately earn money off their exceptional athletic talent and years of hard work. While the system governing name, image, and likeness certainly has room for improvement – particularly in areas of standardization, transparency, and enforcement – and other policies in college athletics warrant reform, the fundamental premise of athlete compensation is sound. Athletes are benefiting in numerous ways, both tangible and intangible, far beyond the obvious financial gain.
If college athletes are truly the central stakeholders of college athletics, and their well-being is genuinely the foremost priority of the entire enterprise, then the opportunity for them to capitalize on their name, image, and likeness should not merely be permanently accepted as an unavoidable reality but should be genuinely celebrated as a positive and equitable evolution for the future of collegiate sports.
Brennan Berg, Professor of Sport Management, University of Mississippi
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
