In recent years, the NCAA has undergone a major transformation in how college athletes can be compensated, driven by the rise of Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) rights. NIL has two key components: brand deals, which allow athletes to sign sponsorships with companies, and direct payments from colleges, which now have the ability to offer players financial incentives to join their programs.
Before NIL rules changed, student-athletes were restricted from profiting off their personal brand, while universities and the NCAA earned $1.3 billion in revenue in 2023. Now, athletes can sign endorsement deals, partner with brands and even be paid directly by their schools, fundamentally altering recruitment and competitive balance in college sports. While some view this as a long-overdue victory for athlete rights, others argue that it has created a financial arms race for recruiting players.
Legal and regulatory pressure
Decades of legal challenges and recent state legislation have forced the NCAA to overhaul its policies regarding college athletes’ rights to their name, image, and likeness. In one pivotal case, O’Bannon v. NCAA, the court found that the NCAA’s restrictions on athlete compensation violated antitrust laws. O’Bannon and other athletes’ NIL was used in the videogame EA Sports’ NCAA Basketball 09.
Another significant blow came in Alston v. NCAA, a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the NCAA could not limit education related benefits for student athletes, reinforcing the notion that the NCAA’s restrictions were subject to antitrust scrutiny.
In response, multiple states enacted legislation allowing college athletes to profit from their NIL rights. California led the way with the Fair Pay to Play Act in 2019, which barred schools from punishing athletes for signing endorsement deals. The law, which took effect in 2021, set off a wave of similar legislation in states like Florida, Colorado, New Jersey and Georgia, forcing the NCAA to adapt.
UVU athletes share their thoughts
As the landscape of college athletics shifts under new NIL rules, UVU Women’s Soccer players Ruby Hladek and Leah Wolf shared their perspectives on the impact of these changes.
“It all trickles down to money,” Hladek said. “It’s trickled into every aspect of sports, which is kinda a bummer because it corrupts what college sports was. But at the same time, it’s a lot of really good opportunities. It just depends on your school, how much money your program has and what sport you are in.”
Around the country, many high profile NCAA football and basketball players are signing million-dollar recruitment contracts and lucrative brand deals. Despite similar deals not existing for women’s soccer, they emphasized that they still benefit from scholarships and other existing resources. “We get a lot in general, so none of us complain. We have scholarships and we have other opportunities” Hladek added.
When it comes to brand deals, Hladek also has an ambassadorship with Alani energy drinks who provides her with free products. However, they stressed that NIL agreements are tricky to navigate at times. “There are rules about what money you can and can’t take,” Wolf explained. “There are also brand deals the university has. We were Adidas and now we are Nike. Wearing Nike stuff when representing our school is important.” And they can’t often wear UVU gear for personal brand deal photoshoots because of copyright.
They pointed out that major brand deals are overwhelmingly concentrated in high profile sports like men’s basketball and football, as well as among athletes with significant social media followings. This disparity underscores a gender gap, likely driven by unequal media exposure, which limits sponsorship opportunities for women’s sports.
For the full interview, visit the UVU Review on YouTube.
The future of NIL
Beyond individual brand deals, NIL is driving direct financial commitments from universities. According to 247Sports.com, major programs are struggling to adapt, with some veteran coaches stepping away from the game. University of Miami basketball coach Jim Larrañaga recently announced his retirement, citing difficulties with the new NIL and transfer portal landscape.
Other coaches embrace the change. Michigan’s Jim Harbaugh has consistently emphasized a “transformational, not transactional” approach to NIL, opposing the use of financial incentives as recruiting tools. “We’re not going to pay signing bonuses for players to come onto the team,” Harbaugh told Si.com.
Instead, Harbaugh supports athletes profiting from their NIL once enrolled, highlighting initiatives like jersey sales and the VICTORS exchange. He also advocates for revenue sharing, suggesting that coaches and administrators take a 5-10% pay cut to benefit student-athletes, reflecting his commitment to equitable compensation within collegiate athletics.
As UVU adapts to these changes, it faces challenges in competing with wealthier institutions in recruitment efforts. Brigham Young University, for instance, has access to a vast donor network through its affiliation with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This financial backing gives BYU a greater ability to raise funds and offer more competitive athlete contracts than UVU. Similar trends are emerging across the country, as major programs use booster support to attract elite talent, widening the financial gap between well-funded schools and smaller institutions.
