With the rise of NIL, college sports are facing dilemmas that never existed in the past.
College athletics serve as a financial backbone for many universities, with some programs generating more than $250 million annually. Yet for decades, the athletes behind that revenue were not compensated for the value they brought to their schools.
Since the NCAA approved Name, Image, and Likeness compensation in 2021, visibility and marketability have become part of an athlete’s résumé.
Athletes are now evaluated not only by their performance on the field, but also by their personal brand and online presence. While most agree that athletes deserve compensation, the rapid rise of NIL deals raises new concerns.
Could NIL create a system where the wealthiest programs attract the best and most marketable athletes? Will certain sports grow financially while others are left behind? And ultimately, should there be stronger guardrails to regulate NIL in college athletics?
Jon McBride, BYU’s associate athletic director for communications and media strategy, said the NIL era has reshaped nearly every aspect of college athletics.
“When you look at the enormous amount of money universities and media networks make from college sports, it is reasonable that athletes receive some of that value,” McBride said.
Today, top college athletes can earn millions of dollars annually through NIL deals. Some argue this reflects their true market value, while others question whether it creates a pay-to-win environment.
Although NIL deals are not directly linked to universities, wealthier programs often have stronger networks and connections to major companies.
This can expose their athletes to more opportunities, potentially creating a form of monopoly. Powerhouse programs have always existed, but without standardized rules, critics argue that NIL driven recruiting advantages could widen the gap between dominant programs and smaller schools.
“Many athletes are surprised by how powerful the BYU brand is. NIL has affected everything from recruiting to retention. It has really changed the entire landscape of college athletics,” McBride said.
Beyond recruiting and retention, NIL may reshape sports at a deeper level. Families are no longer focused solely on earning scholarships.
There is now a financial component to consider. Given the time, money, and energy invested in youth sports, some families may begin prioritizing sports with higher earning potential, such as football and basketball. This shift could influence which sports young athletes pursue, widening the gap between high revenue and lower revenue sports.
BYU cross country and track athlete Lizzie Dildine said, “It would be nice if NILs were spread out a little so other sports feel included and not just like the small team off to the side.”
She pointed to her team’s success last season, noting that despite strong performance, the athletes received nowhere near the same financial opportunities as football or basketball players. While those sports generate significantly more revenue, the disparity raises questions about fairness. If all athletes compete under the same university, should opportunities be so unevenly distributed?
This system can be demoralizing for athletes in smaller sports. Regardless of their training or success, they are unlikely to receive the same financial opportunities as athletes in major programs. In some cases, a football benchwarmer may earn more through NIL deals than a track athlete winning races.
Athletes are also navigating a new reality where performance alone is no longer enough. NIL has become nearly as important as athletic ability. Many now feel pressure to build a personal brand, creating content and maintaining an online presence alongside training and competition.
According to McBride, one of the most noticeable shifts is how athletes approach their public image. In the past, media appearances were often seen as obligations. Now they are viewed as opportunities.
“With NIL, athletes have to be much more intentional about how their brand is being formed,” McBride said.
For some athletes, NIL represents long overdue financial freedom. For others, it adds another layer of pressure to an already demanding schedule.
What remains unclear is the long term future of college sports in the NIL era. While some argue for a return to the previous system, McBride believes that is unlikely.
“I do not think there is any realistic way to go back to how college athletics used to be before NIL,” he said.
NIL was introduced to give athletes a share of the value they create, but it has also raised new questions about fairness, competition and the future of college sports.
As the system evolves, the challenge will be finding a balance between opportunity and competitive equity. Whether that leads to clearer regulations or a more market driven system, one thing is certain. The role of the college athlete has changed permanently.