It is no secret that the landscape of college sports is changing dramatically. For the last five years, the introduction of Name, Image and Likeness rights has empowered student-athletes to profit from how their image is used. That said, the specifics of how these deals are paid, signed and generally function vary depending on state laws. Prior to this, student-athletes were not allowed to use their own images in advertising campaigns or profit from their athletic abilities in any way while they operated under the NCAA. As college athletes are amateurs, the NCAA prohibited them from making any money while playing, because making money due to being an athlete would be tantamount to professional sports.
There are supposed to be stipulations about the form these NIL deals can take and where the money can come from. For example, a school like Ohio State — with a reported athletics budget of over $225 million — is not allowed to pay a potential recruit they may be interested in directly, for that would end the amateur nature of college athletics which distinguishes it from professional athletics. The schools can, however, facilitate brand deals between their athletes and the sponsors of the school. If Ohio State is sponsored by Nike, then the university can broker Nike endorsement deals for their athletes individually, acting as a middleman between the athlete and the sponsor.
I believe that a student-athlete should by all means be able to profit from their NIL, for these schools profit exponentially more from their athletics programs than the athletes themselves do from NIL deals. Ohio State, for example, generated over $336 million in its athletics department alone for the 2025 fiscal year, and spent more than $40 million on its men’s football roster.
In theory, student-athletes have a right to a share of the profit their labor generates. That said, the state-by-state basis of these finance laws makes it difficult for the NCAA or any governing body to standardize the practice of allowing athletes to profit off of their own NIL, without also being commodified by the schools. The murkiness of these laws, in particular the ones regarding how much or how little the schools may mediate deals between their athletes and sponsors, brings us to a particularly slippery slope.
If the schools cannot pay their athletes directly but can facilitate deals between the school’s sponsors and the athletes, then what is stopping these schools from dangling an expensive endorsement deal from one of their sponsors in front of a potential recruit? This is especially damaging to smaller schools outside the Power Four athletic conferences: the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12.
The mechanics of exploitative NIL deals and disjointed finance laws have fundamentally commodified college sports. As a form of entertainment, sports and the dealings of sports are a good gauge for the particular interests of a culture at any given moment. NIL allowances started in good faith as a way for exploited athletes to have a fair share of the profits. It has, however, become corrupted and bought out by the few with enough capital to exert their influence to simultaneously profit and bolster their own social power.
If sports and entertainment are a reflection of broader life, then perhaps there is hope. A bill was passed in the Senate which would “trade federally guaranteed rights for athletes against targeted antitrust protection for the NCAA.” This bill, which awaits a House vote until after November’s midterm elections, would systematize and federally regulate NIL dealing and transfer issues while still maintaining an athlete’s ability to profit from their NIL rights. This would clarify endorsement deals purely on the basis of NIL rights as opposed to essentially a recruiting tool which can be exploited by the few with the most money. If the bill passes come November — and things begin to change — then maybe it is indicative that although America has rapidly approached a sociopolitical breaking point, there may be better things ahead.
