NIL Is Not Perfect, and That Is Fine
NIL has real problems. Boosters use collectives as pay-for-play, the money can widen the gap between rich and poor programs, and constant deal-making can pull focus from school. None of that is a reason to go back. The fix for messy NIL rules is better rules, not a return to a system that barred athletes from earning while everyone around them cashed in. For the full weighing of those tradeoffs, see our breakdown of NIL’s pros and cons.
Financial Freedom and Fairness
For decades the NCAA model was simple and unfair. Universities signed billion-dollar media deals, coaches earned millions, and apparel companies paid hundreds of millions, while the athletes who made the games worth watching could not accept a free meal without risking eligibility. NIL ended that. Athletes can now earn from endorsements, autograph signings, camps, social media, and their own products and merchandise. The athlete creates the value, and now the athlete can finally share in it.
Why Women’s Sports Are NIL’s Breakout Story
The biggest surprise of the NIL era is how much it has lifted women’s sports. Brands reward audience and engagement, not just television ratings, and female athletes carry large, loyal social followings. A gymnast with a strong TikTok presence can out-earn a starting linebacker. From 2022 to 2024, women’s college athletics grew roughly 4.5 times faster than men’s, and projections now put more than $660 million toward women’s athletics across NIL and collective deals. Revenue sharing is following more slowly. Women’s basketball draws the third-most revenue-sharing money of any sport, and women’s sports overall account for an estimated 8 to 12 percent of school payouts in the early going, with football and men’s basketball taking most of the rest. For female athletes, NIL added both income and a platform the old system never offered.
The Athletes Beyond the Spotlight
NIL is not only about football and basketball stars. A volleyball player at a mid-major can sign modest deals with local businesses that help cover rent. A track athlete can land a running-apparel sponsorship. A swimmer or wrestler can monetize a coaching account or a niche following. These opportunities did not exist before 2021, and for athletes in non-revenue and Olympic sports they make a real difference. NIL widened who gets to benefit, not just how much the top earners take home.
Building Entrepreneurs, Not Just Athletes
NIL teaches skills that outlast a playing career. Athletes are forming LLCs, negotiating contracts, filing taxes, managing investments, creating content, and building networks, learning marketing and finance by doing it with real money on the line. A growing number of schools now run formal NIL education programs to support them. Most college athletes will never go pro, and for them these are exactly the skills that set up a career after sports. For the few who do, learning to manage a brand at nineteen is a head start, not a distraction.
On Pay-for-Play: The Honest Answer
The loudest complaint is that NIL has become pay-for-play through booster collectives. It is a fair criticism, and it is the strongest argument against the system as it works today. The answer is not to ban athlete earnings. It is to regulate them, which is now happening. As of July 2025, the new NIL Go clearinghouse reviews third-party deals above $600 for fair market value, and a College Sports Commission enforces the rules. If you want the full case against NIL as it stands, we make that argument in NIL Is Bad: How the Current System Is Failing College Sports.
Competitive Balance: A Real Concern, an Old Problem
Yes, the wealthiest programs can pay the most. But college sports were never balanced. Blue-blood programs hoarded talent, facilities, and television money long before NIL existed. What NIL adds is a path for smaller programs to compete in new ways: creative collectives, tight local-business and alumni networks, a focus on development and NIL education, and the pull of being the only major program in a state or region. The gap is real, but it predates NIL, and NIL at least lets more athletes share in money the sport was already making.
Where NIL Goes From Here
The NIL era is maturing fast. Revenue sharing is now live, the market is professionalizing, and schools are investing in athlete education. The first NIL deal flow report showed just how quickly the market is formalizing, and federal legislation could finally replace the patchwork of state laws with a single national standard. There will be more lawsuits and more growing pains, and the rules will keep changing. The direction, though, is set. Athletes have economic rights they are not going to give back, and the system is slowly building guardrails to match. For how direct pay actually works, see our breakdown of the landmark NCAA settlement.
A Long Overdue Reform
NIL corrected one of the clearest inequities in American sports. Athletes now hold the same right every other student has: to earn from their own name and talent. The system is not finished, and it does not have to be perfect to be a clear improvement on what came before. Five years in, NIL has made college athletics fairer, opened doors that were bolted shut, and given athletes a stake in the value they create. That is a good thing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is NIL good for college sports?
Yes. NIL lets athletes earn from their name, image, and likeness, correcting a model that paid schools, coaches, and sponsors but not the players. Five years in, it has expanded opportunity across sports while regulators work on the rough edges.
Has NIL actually helped women athletes?
Significantly. Brands value audience and engagement, where female athletes are especially strong, and women’s college athletics has grown faster than men’s since NIL began. In the new revenue-sharing model, women’s basketball ranks third among all sports, while women’s sports overall draw an estimated 8 to 12 percent of school payouts.
Do non-star athletes benefit from NIL?
Yes. Athletes in non-revenue and Olympic sports, and at smaller schools, can sign local deals, build audiences, and earn income that did not exist before 2021, even without national fame.
Isn’t NIL just pay-for-play?
That is the main criticism, and it has merit for booster collectives. The fix is regulation, not prohibition. Since July 2025, a clearinghouse reviews larger NIL deals and a new commission enforces the rules. For the full counterargument, see our NIL Is Bad piece.
What is the difference between NIL and revenue sharing?
NIL is money athletes earn from third parties for their name, image, and likeness. Revenue sharing, which began in July 2025, is money a school pays its athletes directly, capped at about $20.5 million per school in year one. The two stack on top of each other.
The Other Side, and the Balanced View
This is the case for NIL. We argue the other side just as seriously. If you believe NIL has broken college sports, read NIL Is Bad: How the Current System Is Failing College Sports. If you want both cases in one place, see NIL Pros and Cons.
Work with SportsEpreneur. We turn NIL news into real-world strategy, and our coverage gets cited by the FCC, Congress, and university programs. If you want your brand inside reporting that audience already trusts, you can sponsor a piece like this one. Reach out.
NIL Is Good: How Name, Image, and Likeness Rights Are Improving College Athletics
Originally published May 2025. Updated June 2026.
Is NIL good for college sports? Five years in, the answer is still yes. Letting college athletes earn from their name, image, and likeness corrected a system that paid almost everyone except the people on the field. Athletes have been able to earn from their name, image, and likeness since July 2021, though the market only took its modern shape over the next two years, as collectives formed and deals scaled. In the years since, athletes have built brands and businesses, women’s sports have surged, and as of July 2025 schools can pay players directly. NIL is not flawless, but it has been overwhelmingly good for college athletics, and the case is stronger now than the day this piece first ran.
TL;DR
NIL Is Not Perfect, and That Is Fine
NIL has real problems. Boosters use collectives as pay-for-play, the money can widen the gap between rich and poor programs, and constant deal-making can pull focus from school. None of that is a reason to go back. The fix for messy NIL rules is better rules, not a return to a system that barred athletes from earning while everyone around them cashed in. For the full weighing of those tradeoffs, see our breakdown of NIL’s pros and cons.
Financial Freedom and Fairness
For decades the NCAA model was simple and unfair. Universities signed billion-dollar media deals, coaches earned millions, and apparel companies paid hundreds of millions, while the athletes who made the games worth watching could not accept a free meal without risking eligibility. NIL ended that. Athletes can now earn from endorsements, autograph signings, camps, social media, and their own products and merchandise. The athlete creates the value, and now the athlete can finally share in it.
Why Women’s Sports Are NIL’s Breakout Story
The biggest surprise of the NIL era is how much it has lifted women’s sports. Brands reward audience and engagement, not just television ratings, and female athletes carry large, loyal social followings. A gymnast with a strong TikTok presence can out-earn a starting linebacker. From 2022 to 2024, women’s college athletics grew roughly 4.5 times faster than men’s, and projections now put more than $660 million toward women’s athletics across NIL and collective deals. Revenue sharing is following more slowly. Women’s basketball draws the third-most revenue-sharing money of any sport, and women’s sports overall account for an estimated 8 to 12 percent of school payouts in the early going, with football and men’s basketball taking most of the rest. For female athletes, NIL added both income and a platform the old system never offered.
The Athletes Beyond the Spotlight
NIL is not only about football and basketball stars. A volleyball player at a mid-major can sign modest deals with local businesses that help cover rent. A track athlete can land a running-apparel sponsorship. A swimmer or wrestler can monetize a coaching account or a niche following. These opportunities did not exist before 2021, and for athletes in non-revenue and Olympic sports they make a real difference. NIL widened who gets to benefit, not just how much the top earners take home.
Building Entrepreneurs, Not Just Athletes
NIL teaches skills that outlast a playing career. Athletes are forming LLCs, negotiating contracts, filing taxes, managing investments, creating content, and building networks, learning marketing and finance by doing it with real money on the line. A growing number of schools now run formal NIL education programs to support them. Most college athletes will never go pro, and for them these are exactly the skills that set up a career after sports. For the few who do, learning to manage a brand at nineteen is a head start, not a distraction.
On Pay-for-Play: The Honest Answer
The loudest complaint is that NIL has become pay-for-play through booster collectives. It is a fair criticism, and it is the strongest argument against the system as it works today. The answer is not to ban athlete earnings. It is to regulate them, which is now happening. As of July 2025, the new NIL Go clearinghouse reviews third-party deals above $600 for fair market value, and a College Sports Commission enforces the rules. If you want the full case against NIL as it stands, we make that argument in NIL Is Bad: How the Current System Is Failing College Sports.
Competitive Balance: A Real Concern, an Old Problem
Yes, the wealthiest programs can pay the most. But college sports were never balanced. Blue-blood programs hoarded talent, facilities, and television money long before NIL existed. What NIL adds is a path for smaller programs to compete in new ways: creative collectives, tight local-business and alumni networks, a focus on development and NIL education, and the pull of being the only major program in a state or region. The gap is real, but it predates NIL, and NIL at least lets more athletes share in money the sport was already making.
Where NIL Goes From Here
The NIL era is maturing fast. Revenue sharing is now live, the market is professionalizing, and schools are investing in athlete education. The first NIL deal flow report showed just how quickly the market is formalizing, and federal legislation could finally replace the patchwork of state laws with a single national standard. There will be more lawsuits and more growing pains, and the rules will keep changing. The direction, though, is set. Athletes have economic rights they are not going to give back, and the system is slowly building guardrails to match. For how direct pay actually works, see our breakdown of the landmark NCAA settlement.
A Long Overdue Reform
NIL corrected one of the clearest inequities in American sports. Athletes now hold the same right every other student has: to earn from their own name and talent. The system is not finished, and it does not have to be perfect to be a clear improvement on what came before. Five years in, NIL has made college athletics fairer, opened doors that were bolted shut, and given athletes a stake in the value they create. That is a good thing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is NIL good for college sports?
Yes. NIL lets athletes earn from their name, image, and likeness, correcting a model that paid schools, coaches, and sponsors but not the players. Five years in, it has expanded opportunity across sports while regulators work on the rough edges.
Has NIL actually helped women athletes?
Significantly. Brands value audience and engagement, where female athletes are especially strong, and women’s college athletics has grown faster than men’s since NIL began. In the new revenue-sharing model, women’s basketball ranks third among all sports, while women’s sports overall draw an estimated 8 to 12 percent of school payouts.
Do non-star athletes benefit from NIL?
Yes. Athletes in non-revenue and Olympic sports, and at smaller schools, can sign local deals, build audiences, and earn income that did not exist before 2021, even without national fame.
Isn’t NIL just pay-for-play?
That is the main criticism, and it has merit for booster collectives. The fix is regulation, not prohibition. Since July 2025, a clearinghouse reviews larger NIL deals and a new commission enforces the rules. For the full counterargument, see our NIL Is Bad piece.
What is the difference between NIL and revenue sharing?
NIL is money athletes earn from third parties for their name, image, and likeness. Revenue sharing, which began in July 2025, is money a school pays its athletes directly, capped at about $20.5 million per school in year one. The two stack on top of each other.
The Other Side, and the Balanced View
This is the case for NIL. We argue the other side just as seriously. If you believe NIL has broken college sports, read NIL Is Bad: How the Current System Is Failing College Sports. If you want both cases in one place, see NIL Pros and Cons.
Work with SportsEpreneur. We turn NIL news into real-world strategy, and our coverage gets cited by the FCC, Congress, and university programs. If you want your brand inside reporting that audience already trusts, you can sponsor a piece like this one. Reach out.
Related content to How Name, Image, and Likeness Rights Are Improving College Athletics
College Sports Isn’t a Business. But There’s Business in College Sports.
Transfer Portal Pros and Cons | What’s the Future of College Athletics
Sports Betting on University Campuses | Coming in Like a Hurricane
The Losers of College Football Realignment That No One Talks About