When the NCAA opened the doors to Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation in 2021, the move was hailed as a long-overdue win for college athletes. Finally, players could earn income from their personal brand, endorsements, and social media presence—something previously denied under the guise of preserving “amateurism.”
But as the dust settles, it’s becoming increasingly clear that NIL, in its current form, is not the panacea many hoped it would be. While the system has empowered a small group of high-profile athletes, it has also created chaos, widened inequities, and pulled college athletics further away from the values it once championed.
One of the most immediate consequences of NIL has been the destabilization of recruiting. While technically not allowed to be used as an incentive, NIL deals have quickly become a determining factor in where top athletes choose to play. Boosters and “collectives” now act as quasi-agents, dangling six- and seven-figure deals in front of teenage athletes.
This has turned recruiting into a high-stakes arms race where the richest programs, often with the most aggressive donor networks, gain an insurmountable edge. Smaller schools—once able to compete through coaching, culture, or development—are increasingly left behind. The playing field, already uneven, has tilted dramatically.
NIL was supposed to be about fairness. But so far, fairness has meant little more than a handful of athletes securing life-changing payouts while the vast majority continue without any financial support. According to Opendorse, a central NIL platform, nearly 80% of all NIL compensation goes to football and men’s basketball players—and the top 1% earns the lion’s share.
Meanwhile, athletes in non-revenue sports, female athletes, and walk-ons often see little to no financial benefit. In other words, NIL is reinforcing existing hierarchies—not correcting them.
The college athlete already balances academics, training, competition, and travel. Add in contract negotiations, content creation, brand management, and financial literacy hurdles, and you’ve got a full-time job with zero institutional infrastructure to support it.
What’s more, NIL has shifted the focus from team goals to individual visibility. Locker room dynamics are changing. Some athletes are driving luxury cars and shooting national ad campaigns; others can’t afford textbooks. That breeds tension. And it’s eroding the trust, unity, and identity that have long been the bedrock of college teams.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of NIL is the lack of national oversight. The NCAA’s guidelines are minimal and unevenly enforced. States have passed their own patchwork laws. Schools interpret the rules in wildly different ways. There is no consistency, no collective bargaining, and—most dangerously—no protection for the athletes themselves.
Young athletes are entering contracts with unclear terms. Unscrupulous agents and sponsors are circling. Many athletes don’t understand tax implications or long-term consequences. In short, NIL has introduced a new system without introducing the structure needed to keep it ethical, equitable, or sustainable.
The recent departure of Tennessee Volunteers quarterback Nico Iamaleava underscores the complexities introduced by NIL. Iamaleava, who had an $8 million NIL agreement with Tennessee’s donor collective, reportedly sought to double his compensation to $4 million annually. After missing team meetings and practices in pursuit of this raise, he was dismissed from the team by head coach Josh Heupel. Iamaleava’s actions, including exploring transfer options, highlight the evolving power dynamics in college sports, as student-athletes increasingly wield leverage akin to NFL professionals.
To be clear, compensating athletes is not the problem. The problem is how NIL has been rolled out—without regulation, without transparency, and without meaningful reform to the broader economic structure of college sports.
If we care about preserving the essence of college athletics—about competition, education, and opportunity—then NIL in its current form isn’t the practical solution. What we need is a reimagined system: one that includes revenue sharing, centralized oversight, and athlete protections, all within a framework that values both equity and integrity.
Otherwise, we risk turning college sports into a chaotic shadow of the professional leagues they were never meant to imitate.
If you love sports, download Stadium Rant from the Apple App Store and join one of the fastest-growing social sports communities. Be sure to follow us on socials too — you can find all our profiles on our Linktree.
