Scholarships or Sponsorships The Stark Reality of NIL

The year is 2009, Tim Tebow leads the Florida Gators to their second national championship in three years, Kentucky men’s basketball becomes the first program to reach 2 thousand wins, and Ed O’Bannon files a lawsuit against the NCAA. For context, O’Bannon was a former power forward and college basketball star for the UCLA Bruins, helping lead the team to a national championship in 1995.

 

O’Bannon brought a lawsuit against the NCAA after noticing the use of his likeness in EA Sports’ NCAA Basketball 09 video game. He argued that the video game used his name, image, and likeness (NIL) without obtaining his consent or providing him compensation. The case, O’Bannon v. NCAA, would become a prominent topic in college athletics for years as many waited for a decision. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the final decision on the case, and to the surprise of many, it ruled in favor of O’Bannon. The appellate court held that the NCAA’s restrictions on certain student-athlete compensation violated antitrust laws but rejected the district court's initial compensation plan, which would have allowed up to $5 thousand dollars in deferred payments to student-athletes. The ruling was celebrated, being viewed as a victory for the rights of amateur athletes. While the ruling itself was necessary, the floodgates it opened were not.

 

Later cases would solidify and advance the court’s ruling in O’Bannon v. NCAA. In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled on NCAA v. Alston, unanimously holding that NCAA restrictions on educational-focused benefits violated antitrust laws. Non-cash perks such as computers, study-abroad opportunities, and paid internships were now permissible under NCAA rules. The case only added pressure on the NCAA to allow more comprehensive forms of compensation for student-athletes.

 

A major tipping point in the business of paid college athletics came with the settlement of House v. NCAA in 2025. This case resolved three antitrust lawsuits brought against the NCAA, forcing the NCAA to pay approximately $2.8 billion dollars in damages to roughly 184,000 student-athletes who competed in college athletics between 2016 and 2025. House v. NCAA essentially paved the way for the widespread use of pay-for-play, permitting universities to compensate student-athletes for participation in their athletic programs.

 

$5.4 million dollars. That is the widely reported NIL valuation of Arch Manning, quarterback for the University of Texas football team and heir to the Manning legacy. Make no mistake, Arch Manning is one of the most well-known athletes currently suiting up in NCAA athletics. He should undoubtedly be compensated for his name, image, and likeness, but $5.4 million dollars is far removed from the initial 5 thousand dollar compensation plan proposed by the district court in 2014 under O’Bannon v. NCAA. Valuations this high are not uncommon. When combining the next five highest overall estimated player NIL valuations after Arch Manning, the total comes out to $18.6 million dollars (AJ Dybantsa (Basketball, BYU) – $4.2 million); (Jeremiah Smith (Football, Ohio State) – $4.2 million); (Sam Leavitt (Football, LSU) – $4.0 million); (Brendan Sorsby (Football, Texas Tech) – $3.1 million); and (Bryce Underwood (Football, Michigan) – $3.1 million).

 

What are these exorbitant NIL valuations telling the student-athletes? It makes it clear to them that when they step on campus, they are not students – they are professional athletes. The reason the NCAA was initially so hesitant to compensate amateur athletes was exactly for this reason. College athletes are students, not professional athletes. Before the rise of NIL valuations, there were examples of academics taking a back seat in collegiate athletics. Whether Ben Simmons admitting that he did not attend class because he "don't need to” or the University of North Carolina creating “easy A” classes for its student-athletes, the issue of student-athletes not upholding the “student” part of the deal has long persisted.

 

If instances of prioritizing athletics over academics existed before NIL, the problem has only gotten worse with student athletes driving around college campuses in Rolls-Royces and Lamborghinis. It is also alarming when you analyze the amount of money many higher education institutions spend on their athletic programs. These are universities, not professional sports organizations, yet they continue to spend tens of millions on student-athletes and athletic facilities prioritizing athletics above education. The estimated amount of money each SEC school spent to build a men’s basketball roster for the 2025-26 season was $9.7 million dollars. This number is just for men’s basketball and does not consider other sports, such as football, which is also a massively popular SEC sport.

 

While putting together strong athletic programs may provide an increase in revenue and publicity for universities, what is it doing for the average student? Could this money be better spent elsewhere to improve the education of all the non-student-athletes attending these universities? A study conducted on the top 25 Power Five universities found that the lowest amount of money spent per athlete among the top 25 universities in one year was $161,153 while the highest amount of money spent per student was $67,530. That is a difference of almost $100,000 dollars. It would be hard to argue that this discrepancy is not a by-product of NIL.

 

Schools that were previously able to recruit based on academic prestige or rich athletic history are now forced to recruit with dollars. The power in college athletics now sits with the student-athletes. As of 2026, student-athletes can transfer an unlimited number of times between schools. Before NIL, transferring meant seeking a better opportunity. Now, transferring means seeking a better paycheck. Even if a school invests millions of dollars in a student-athlete, that student-athlete can pick up and leave after just a single year at the university.

 

How can a student-athlete who has transferred three or possibly even four times between schools receive a quality education? Graduating on time or completing a degree is no longer important to the top NIL student-athletes. A degree matters less than which school is offering you the biggest NIL valuation.

 

The original purpose of NIL has been lost. NIL was meant to protect the rights of amateur athletes and ensure they received fair compensation where it is due. If your school is selling jerseys with your name on them, you deserve compensation. However, NIL has become a pay-for-play free-for-all, ushering in an era of amateur free agency in college sports. It allows student-athletes to view themselves not as students, but as professional athletes. A college program's recruiting success should not solely be determined by who has the biggest pockets, but by who the player believes provides them with the best opportunity to succeed not only as an athlete, but also as a student.

 

The shadow NIL has cast over amateur athletics must be combatted. Committing to play sports in college used to mean following your dreams or using your athletic ability to build a better future. In the current era, college athletics is about obtaining the most amount of money possible for your athletic services. Regulators and universities need to pump the brakes on NIL and put the “student” back in student-athlete. When a student-athlete walks onto campus, they need to be treated first and foremost as a student rather than a professional athlete. While some student-athletes may very well go on to become the next superstar athlete in their respective sport, that reality is best left for after college.

 

At the end of the day, playing sports in college is about preparing yourself for the next stage of life, whether that is on the field, the court, the rink, or the office. The need for NIL regulation is not about taking money away from student-athletes. It is about helping build a sense of responsibility and accountability in the classroom. When Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA, it was to ensure that he, along with every other amateur athlete, had ownership and protection over their own name, image, and likeness. While student-athletes deserve compensation, it is ultimately much more important that universities retain their status as centers of education that serve to foster growth in student-athletes and non-student athletes alike. An education system that promotes the highest compensation over education, teamwork, and loyalty is an education system with a culture that is rotten at the core.