By Karol Gniecki
@redlineproject
AI disclosure: Notebook LM was used to create the podcast and last video for this essay.
In 2021, the NCAA made a decision that changed the world of collegiate sports forever. It decided to allow college athletes to profit off their name, image and likeness. This change came after a Supreme Court ruling in late June 2021 that addressed the NCAA’s antitrust arguments, and several states were also passing NIL laws.
It marked one of most transformative policy shifts in college sports history, as for decades the amateur model of the NCAA prohibited student-athletes from receiving any type of compensation beyond their scholarships.
Even when universities, broadcasters, and any corporate sponsors would earn millions and billions of dollars of the identity of said player, the athlete wouldn’t get a single dime. This change was meant to permit athletes to share the value they gained off themselves, but the first couple of years of the NIL policy would begin to differ. These benefits would spread unevenly among other sports, gender and even college programs.
While Power Five programs, and star athletes on football and men’s basketball teams, would attract a majority of NIL deals, the smaller schools such as UIC and its non-revenue sports would struggle to compete both financially and competitively.
This essay will argue that the NIL, although a great landmark for athletes and their rights, has caused some problems among the collegiate world. It will explore statistical analysis and expert analysis from former media producer and current Triton College communication professor David Felix. It also will examine the many gaps and threats that harm what the NIL policy intentions.
NIL Promises
Prior to the 2021 decision, NCAA athletes were forbidden to take any income from the outside world. They weren’t able to monetize their personal brands, accept gifts, and engage in any sponsorships. As Felix noted, “Prior, if you were a college athlete, you couldn’t get any type of money, even the type of gifts could get you in trouble depending on what it was.” This model persisted despite the fact that college sports generated more than $18 billion annually for universities and sponsors. The NIL policy finally acknowledged that athletes are not only students, but athletes who are a part of an industry of entertainment that generates profit based on their likeness.
From that perspective, it was necessary for that policy to come into play. Now, student-athletes have the freedom to market themselves and use their influence on brands to get a profit, more specifically among the social media world.
Illinois universities would quickly join this trend, enacting the state legislation to allow student athletes at any public university to endorse themselves and gain sponsors without losing playing eligibility. Again, on paper this would make sense as athletes are not only just students but also a part of an entertainment industry. However, the same markets that dominated college sports would keep dominating regardless of this policy.
The Harsh Reality
According to Opendorse’s 2024 “NIL at 3” report revealed that the total NIL market grew from $971 million in 2021–22, to $1.67 billion in 2024–25. While that sounds good, it doesn’t translate to equal distribution everywhere. Sports Illustrated reported that the NCAA’S internal data showed 37.2% of NIL activity is in football, while men’s basketball has around 15.4%. More than half of the revenue goes to just two men’s sports.
Compare that to women’s basketball, softball, soccer, and any other sports combined share only one-third of any NIL deals. And some athletes earn much more than others.
Nationally, the average student-athlete makes around $21,000 per year. In simpler terms, a small portion of major programs acquire a majority of NIL revenue. For example, in Illinois, this created a problem between known universities such as the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, and smaller, mid-tier programs such as UIC. For women’s teams and any other sports that don’t receive much revenue, this has no impact whatsoever.
Even with the small opportunities they have, they often go toward local sponsorships and even small deals from social media. This NIL power goes beyond sports and gender as well. According to the On3 report, the top 15 NIL collectors have over $200 million in funding. These serve as a payroll system that allows for any alumni that have the money to outbid other programs to get recruits. That would effectively change how the recruitment process from prior years changes to the current date in time.
Student-athletes who want to stay close to home for the purpose of being close to family, are possibly lured away by loads of money they have never seen before in their lifetime. This would cause problems for smaller programs such as UIC as they lack the wealthy alumni that could possibly lure in student athletes. Not only that, the universities’ ability to try and attract athletes because of their education can be squandered because their NIL could be low. Money can play a factor, as Felix stated, “Any student, whether being an athlete or not, will have financial troubles.” Any type of profit to the athlete’s name, could possibly change their lives for years to come.
Responsibility At A Young Age
NIL revenue can impact players and their families. In these student-athletes’ life, it will be their first time getting paid for the sport they want to continue to pursue at a collegiate level. Many of these students, some as young as 18 or 19, are receiving money that even small business owners would kill to have. As Felix put, “it’s interesting giving 19, 20, even 21-year-olds that type of money.” Not only does Felix believe that, many others have that concern about whether these athletes are prepared to take on that financial responsibility. But, there are some solutions toward the problem of just giving money out of these student-athletes.
In professional leagues, rookies typically receive financial training, counseling and access to agents that make critical decisions for them. However, collegiate athletes try to navigate those critical decisions by themselves, or even agents who try to take advantage of these athletes could arise and potentially derail any progress they have.
UIC Women’s basketball coach Ashleen Bracey said that her student-athletes get financial training. Felix also provided some insight: “Anytime you get that type of money, you’ll get some sort of help behind it … they should get sport agents just to manage them around, especially with the money they’re given.”
This opinion is a common sentiment among sport management scholars who fight for financial programs and proper agents who are certified in the field. Especially when it comes to the safety of the young athletes involved along with their spending.
In Illinois, a lot of these programs and measures are severely underdeveloped. While the NIL policy allows student-athletes to use said privilege to hire agents, it lacks any sort of insight on the universities providing these student-athletes with feedback on the chosen agent. This would leave many student-athletes in jeopardy as they try to navigate any financial problem and lack any type of support. By saying that, this would risk any NIL deal into exposing the athlete rather than introducing them to financial freedom.
NIL Opportunities
A majority of what the NIL offers is that every athlete is given an equal shot at financial success. It is said that it works as a free market and it rewarded like a job essentially. Yet, it is far from that because a majority of NIL income doesn’t come from sponsorships but comes from boosters and enacts under the new wave of the recruiting process. The true NIL deals that come from social media, brands, and any autographs are just rewards rather than any payments. When it comes to actual payouts, it is all up to the performance of the athlete while really blur the lines between a collegiate athlete to a professional athlete.
Said Felix, “College sports are basically the minor [leagues], well before they were but now they’re getting paid like they play in the minors but with more money at stake.” In more ways than not, NIL opportunities depend on who you are and how you play. You may not get the same type of NIL opportunities that other big names have.”
Universities like UIC, where the NIL budget is decent at best and limited to local sponsorships, have to take a different approach to recruiting student-athletes. For them, NIL creates an environment that feels like a purchase rather than feeling more pure and kind-hearted. It all depends on the athlete on whether they want to go to that program and evaluate it not just based on the education and scholarship they are offered, but based off of the NIL deal that was presented to them. It’s now turned into a free market, where instead of developing young minds they develop to hustle one another because of the financial outcome they get.
Professional and NIL Perspective
Most NIL critics argue that it has professionalized college sports, differentiating what a student is and what an athlete is. While there is truth behind that, there is some data that paints a different picture. According to the Business of College Sports, even the highest-earning student-athletes only earn around 35.3% of the salary that the professional athlete makes. F
or example, a top 25 men’s basketball player earns only 7.6% the salary that a NBA player makes, and a top 25 college baseball player makes only 3.3% the salary a MLB player makes. Those numbers show that although NIL has introduced a market in the college sports, it’s not even close to touching the salaries and payrolls of professional athletes.
However, booster money can still influence the outcome of decisions of many student-athletes. If the athlete’s choice of school is based on the NIL offer, then the pay-to-play factor comes into effect rather than based on the education they would like to pursue. NIL will create more entitled athletes and inequality among others when it all comes down to it. No longer will education have play as big of a role in the proces. Rather, it will be the biggest payout. NIL needs to be governed responsibly.
Conclusion
NIL has reshaped the landscape of collegiate sports and what it means to be a student-athlete. While it acknowledges the value of student-athletes, its implementation challenges the values of student athletes. Not only do Power Five Programs dominate NIL policy, smaller programs and especially women sports are at a loss because of it.
Felix added: “Any student, whether being an athlete or not, will have financial troubles.” NIL was supposed to relieve the financial stress of student-athletes, yet it adds to the problem at the same time. It comes down to the tension between opportunity and being taken advantage of.
FAQ
Q: What are NIL Rights, and how did their implementation change collegiate athletics? A: NIL stands for Name, Image, and Likeness. In 2021, the NCAA decided to allow college athletes to profit off their NIL, marking one of the most transformative policy shifts in the NCAA’s history. For decades, the amateurism model prohibited student-athletes from receiving compensation beyond their scholarships. This change was necessary because college sports generated more than $18 billion annually for universities and sponsors, yet athletes couldn’t monetize their personal brands or accept sponsorships.
Q: Is NIL revenue distributed equally among different sports and athletes? A: No, the benefits have spread unevenly among sports, gender, and college programs. While the total NIL market grew to $1.67 billion in 2024–25, distribution is unequal. According to NCAA internal data, 37.2% of NIL activity is in football, and men’s basketball has around 15.4%. Conversely, women’s basketball, softball, soccer, and all other sports combined share only one-third of any NIL deals. Nationally, the average student-athlete makes around $21,000 per year, but the median is around $480.
Q: What negative consequences has NIL introduced, particularly in recruitment? A: The NIL policy has created problems and gaps in the collegiate world. It fosters inequality and is changing recruitment. Top NIL collectors, who have over $200 million in funding, effectively act as a payroll system that allows wealthy alumni to outbid other programs for recruits. This shift means athletes may be lured away from home by money, causing issues for smaller, mid-tier programs like UIC that lack such wealthy alumni.
Q: What challenges do young athletes face regarding financial responsibility, and what solutions are proposed? A: Many student-athletes, some as young as 18 or 19, are receiving money they have never seen before, raising concerns about their preparedness to handle the financial responsibility. While professional leagues typically provide rookies with financial training, collegiate athletes often navigate these decisions alone, risking exploitation by agents. Solutions include implementing financial programs across universities and ensuring access to certified proper agents to manage the funds and provide long-term financial gain. UIC Women’s basketball coach Ashleen Bracey provides her student-athletes with financial training.