All news
The Distorted Narrative Surrounding NIL in Collegiate Sports
October 20, 2023

By Adam Cook, VP - Campus Ink Sports

Whenever discussions about Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) arise in collegiate sports, a stark truth becomes evident. Many leaders and politicians spearheading these discussions have crafted an undeniably one-sided narrative. 

From the outset, their framing of this conversation has largely been driven by vested interests and not with a genuine aim to uplift the college sports space, and more specifically, collegiate student-athletes.

It's heartbreaking and concerning to watch as the conversation progresses, the intentions become less hidden and more blatantly apparent. Their primary issue with NIL isn't about maintaining the sanctity or spirit of college sports, but rather about ensuring that the value continues to stay firmly and unilaterally in their hands and no others.

It's baffling that certain leaders can argue, with a straight face, that it's difficult to root for student-athletes once they’ve made money.

Don’t believe me?

Toward the end of 10th Congressional hearing on potential legislation to regulate name, image and likeness in college sports, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said, “It’s getting hard to root for the kids when they’re multi-millionaires as freshmen and sophomores.”

It’s especially irritating when many of these individuals have likely benefited from privileged backgrounds. 

Arguing to actively prohibit students' ability to capitalize on their talent and influence, particularly within an ecosystem that will directly impact their current and future livelihood, is not only hypocritical but exhibits a significant shortfall of quality leadership, empathy, and foresight.

This argument, often presented with an air of feigned concern, suggests that monetization in this way could "lose" the essence of college sports. 

What is this so-called essence they are trying to protect? Is it the essence of a system where a Power 5 college football conference is cannibalized for profit and stripped for parts? Or perhaps it's the essence of the colossal broadcast deal the NCAA has to monetize college basketball rights? Or is it the disturbing rise in suicide rates and mental health issues among student-athletes, many of whom grapple with pressures of competing at the highest level and meeting the escalating education and living costs while being denied opportunities to earn from their skills? Is this the essence of college athletics we’re trying to protect?

These "guardians" of collegiate sports traditions seem more enamored with nostalgia than with addressing the glaring issues at hand. The very fact that organizations like the NCAA are keen on escalating the NIL conversation to the federal level speaks volumes. All the attempts at Federal legislature are clearly not about ensuring fairness or justice but attempts to circumvent antitrust considerations and monopolize opportunity.

Legal experts such as Mit Winter and Darren Heitner, have rightfully pointed out that there's neither a need nor a precedent to involve federal legislation in these matters. The push towards such drastic measures is a blatant attempt to bypass market demands and the rightful compensation due to the young talents who create value in the collegiate sports ecosystem.

The resistance to NIL is a symptom of a deeper problem – legacy stakeholders are either unwilling or unable to adapt and innovate. Instead of embracing a system that benefits all stakeholders, they cling to outdated models that prioritize their own interests at the expense of the fans, universities, and athletes alike who make college sports what it is.

I have not seen any evidence that the NIL debate happening in these hearings is about preserving the sanctity of college sports; but rather preserving a system that enriches a select few who claim ownership of the system while exploiting the talents of young athletes who make it great.

This reeks of contradictions. It's crucial that we recognize and challenge these narratives. The future of college sports hinges not on maintaining a flawed status quo or legislating unilateral control but on ushering in an era of innovation, and respect for the athletes of all sports who make college athletics what it is.

###