Avi Jager | August 18, 2025
Did you know that in 2023, college football and basketball generated over $18.9 billion in revenue, yet until recently, the athletes driving those profits couldn't legally earn a penny from their own name, image, and likeness? The landscape changed dramatically in July 2021 when the NCAA finally allowed Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals, but the question remains: are college athletes truly getting their fair share of the massive pie they help create?
Did you know that in 2023, college football and basketball generated over $18.9 billion in revenue, yet until recently, the athletes driving those profits couldn't legally earn a penny from their own name, image, and likeness? The landscape changed dramatically in July 2021 when the NCAA finally allowed Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals, but the question remains: are college athletes truly getting their fair share of the massive pie they help create?
The NIL era has transformed college sports from a strictly amateur pursuit into something resembling a professional league with training wheels. Athletes can now sign endorsement deals, sell autographs, and monetize their social media presence. However, the reality of NIL compensation is far more complex than the headlines suggest, creating a new ecosystem where some athletes thrive while others barely see a dime.
While social media buzzes with stories of six-figure NIL deals, the stark reality is that only a tiny fraction of college athletes are cashing in big. Star quarterbacks at major universities might secure deals worth hundreds of thousands, but the average track and field athlete at a mid-tier school often earns nothing from NIL opportunities. This disparity mirrors the broader entertainment industry, where A-list celebrities command millions while supporting actors struggle to make ends meet.
The gap becomes even more pronounced when you consider sport popularity and gender. Football and basketball players dominate the NIL landscape, while athletes in sports like wrestling, swimming, or women's lacrosse find themselves fighting for scraps. Female athletes, despite often having strong social media followings, typically earn significantly less than their male counterparts in comparable sports. The market rewards what it values most, and unfortunately, that often excludes the dedicated athletes who pour their hearts into less commercially viable sports.
Navigating NIL rules feels like trying to read a map while riding a roller coaster blindfolded. Each state has different regulations, individual schools impose their own restrictions, and the NCAA continues to issue guidance that sometimes contradicts previous statements. Athletes must walk a tightrope between maximizing their earning potential and avoiding violations that could jeopardize their eligibility.
Some schools have embraced NIL with open arms, creating robust support systems to help athletes navigate deals and partnerships. Others remain hesitant, viewing NIL as a threat to traditional college athletics culture. This inconsistency creates an uneven playing field where an athlete's earning potential might depend more on their school's attitude toward NIL than their actual marketability. The lack of standardized rules across the board means athletes are often left guessing about what's permissible and what might land them in hot water.
Beyond the headline-grabbing NIL deals lies a more sobering reality about what college athletes actually sacrifice for their sport. The time commitment alone is staggering – between practices, games, travel, strength training, and recovery, many athletes dedicate 40+ hours per week to their sport while maintaining full course loads. When you calculate their effective hourly wage from NIL deals against the time invested, many athletes are earning far less than minimum wage.
The physical toll adds another layer to the compensation debate. Athletes risk serious injuries that could affect them for life, all while generating millions in revenue for their universities. Unlike professional athletes, college players don't have unions negotiating for better safety protocols or long-term healthcare benefits. The recent focus on head injuries and CTE has highlighted just how much athletes are putting on the line, often without adequate compensation for the risks they're taking.
While athletes navigate the complex NIL landscape, universities continue to reap massive financial benefits with relatively few new expenses. Athletic departments still collect television revenue, ticket sales, and merchandise profits, while only providing minimal additional support for NIL activities. Many schools have cleverly positioned themselves as facilitators rather than direct payers, avoiding the costs of actually employing athletes while still benefiting from their performance.
The infrastructure that supports college athletics – stadiums, training facilities, coaching staffs – remains funded primarily by the revenue athletes generate. Yet these same athletes are expected to be grateful for scholarships that often don't cover the full cost of attendance. The power dynamic remains heavily skewed toward institutions, with athletes bearing the risk and doing the work while universities maintain control over the most lucrative revenue streams.
The traditional argument for not paying college athletes has always centered on the "free education" they receive through scholarships. However, this narrative conveniently ignores several uncomfortable truths about how athletic scholarships actually work. Many scholarships aren't actually "full rides" and leave athletes responsible for significant out-of-pocket expenses. Even full scholarships often don't cover basic living expenses, leaving athletes from low-income families struggling financially while generating millions for their schools.
Additionally, athletic scholarships come with strings attached that traditional academic scholarships don't. Lose your starting position, suffer a career-ending injury, or fall out of favor with coaches, and your scholarship can disappear. This creates a precarious situation where athletes must constantly prove their worth while having little job security. The education they're supposedly receiving often takes a backseat to athletic demands, with many athletes pushed into less rigorous majors to accommodate their training schedules.
Perhaps the most significant development in the NIL era has been the rise of booster collectives – organizations that pool resources to offer NIL deals to athletes at specific schools. These collectives operate in a gray area, technically independent from universities but often run by major donors with clear school loyalties. They've created a new form of "pay-for-play" that walks right up to the line of NCAA violations while remaining technically compliant.
This development has essentially turned college recruitment into a bidding war, where schools with wealthier alumni bases hold significant advantages. Athletes now consider NIL potential alongside traditional factors like coaching staff and facilities when choosing schools. While this gives athletes more bargaining power, it also raises questions about competitive balance and whether we're moving toward a system where only well-funded programs can compete for top talent.
NIL deals often depend heavily on social media following and engagement, creating new pressures for athletes beyond their sport performance. Building and maintaining a personal brand requires time, effort, and skills that have nothing to do with athletic ability. Athletes must now think like content creators, posting regularly, engaging with followers, and crafting their online personas to attract potential sponsors.
This shift has created winners and losers based on factors completely unrelated to athletic merit. A charismatic benchwarmer with strong social media skills might out-earn a more talented but less marketable starter. Female athletes, despite often having smaller NIL deals, frequently outperform male athletes in social media engagement, highlighting the complex relationship between athletic performance and marketability. The pressure to maintain an online presence can become another full-time job stacked on top of academics and athletics.
The NIL era has undeniably improved opportunities for college athletes, but calling the current system "fair compensation" requires significant mental gymnastics. While some athletes are finally able to benefit financially from their talents and hard work, the majority still operate in a system designed primarily to benefit everyone except them. The revenue generated by college sports continues to flow predominantly to coaches, administrators, and facilities rather than the athletes who make it all possible.
True fairness in college athletics compensation would require more fundamental changes than NIL deals alone can provide. Perhaps the most honest assessment is that NIL represents progress – a step toward recognizing athletes' value – but it's far from the destination of genuine equity.
What do you think constitutes fair compensation for college athletes? Should the focus be on expanding NIL opportunities, or does the entire structure of college athletics need a more radical overhaul?
1. NCAA Financial Reports and Revenue Data, 2023 2. Sports Business Journal NIL Market Analysis, 2023 3. Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics Reports 4. Opendorse NIL Deal Database and Analytics
