Although NIL agreements offer college athletes valuable chances to monetize their skills, they may inadvertently foster new disparities within collegiate athletics, as the advantages tend to be unevenly distributed among prominent athletes in elite programs.
The advent of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements has been celebrated as a significant achievement for college athletes, enabling them to monetize their personal brands. Following years of debate regarding the NCAA’s prohibition on student-athletes profiting from their likenesses, NIL regulations provide a just opportunity for athletes to generate income through endorsements, social media, and various personal initiatives. Nevertheless, although the NIL era represents a much-needed remedy to the exploitation of college athletes, it has inadvertently intensified disparities between prominent athletes and their less – recognized counterparts, as well as between elite programs and smaller colleges.
A clear disparity is becoming apparent. Prominent athletes from institutions such as Alabama, Ohio State, and
Clemson are securing substantial endorsement contracts, frequently amounting to millions, whereas those from lesser-known programs face challenges in attracting sponsorships. For instance, former Alabama quarterback Bryce Young is said to have signed agreements exceeding $1 million prior to his first starting appearance. In contrast, athletes from smaller Division I programs or less commercially appealing sports, such as swimming or gymnastics, find themselves without comparable opportunities, despite their dedication and skill.
The financial advantages associated with NIL deals are not only influenced by individual differences but also tend to favor institutions located in larger markets that benefit from enhanced media visibility and wealthier alumni networks. Athletic programs within prominent conferences such as the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC possess a significant edge in attracting elite athletes who recognize the potential for substantial endorsement deals. For instance, it has been reported that Texas A&M football players secured over $30 million in NIL agreements during a single recruiting cycle, a figure that far surpasses the offerings of smaller institutions. This situation fosters a recruiting disparity, allowing dominant programs to incorporate NIL opportunities into their recruitment strategies, thereby exacerbating the divide between elite programs and those with limited resources. Consequently, institutions with lower visibility and less robust alumni support face challenges in retaining or attracting top-tier talent, thereby reinforcing the cycle of inequality within college athletics.
Student-athletes share experiences with NIL at NCAA Convention
Gender disparities have become evident in the realm of NIL deals, with male athletes, especially those in football and basketball, largely dominating the endorsement landscape. Data from Opendorse, a prominent NIL platform, indicates that more than 60% of all NIL agreements are obtained by male athletes. In contrast, female athletes—despite their achievements in sports such as gymnastics, soccer, and basketball—tend to receive considerably fewer and less lucrative deals. Even in disciplines where women excel, like gymnastics, they frequently fall short of their male peers in attracting sponsorships. For instance, while LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne stands out as one of the rare exceptions with deals exceeding $3 million, her situation is atypical, underscoring the gender disparity in NIL opportunities. This situation perpetuates existing inequalities, as women’s sports have historically garnered less media coverage and financial backing.
The increasing disparity underscores a critical concern regarding NIL policies: they fail to create an equitable environment and instead perpetuate existing inequalities. Prominent athletes in high-revenue sports, particularly football and basketball, garner the majority of financial advantages, while less recognized athletes remain largely ignored. Furthermore, institutions with expansive media markets and affluent alumni networks possess a considerable edge in recruitment, as they can offer potential recruits access to more lucrative NIL agreements.
Although NIL agreements represent progress towards equity in collegiate athletics, they are not devoid of shortcomings. One unintended effect of these regulations is the establishment of new hierarchies that exacerbate the divide between prominent and lesser-known athletes. To guarantee that NIL opportunities are advantageous for all athletes uniformly, reforms may be necessary to tackle these increasing inequalities.
