NIL promised fairness but delivered chaos

Five years after the NCAA opened name, image and likeness compensation, college athletes earn from schools, donors, collectives and brands. Yet the system still hasn't created fair payment for student-athletes.

The lawsuit that started it all

O'Bannon v. NCAA challenged whether student-athletes could generate commercial value for schools without compensation. The Ninth Circuit found compensation restrictions too restrictive, opening the door to NIL in 2021.

Information is the missing piece

Blake Lawrence, co-founder of NIL tech company Opendorse, says 67% of school compensation goes to athletes without agents. A fair market requires transparency, something college sports completely lacks compared to professional leagues.

“Information is necessary to create a fair market”

Kickers are taking matters into their own hands

College football kickers have started sharing contract information through group chats and social media to negotiate better deals. Starting kickers at Power Four schools now average $225,000, up 60.9% from a year earlier.

Social media reach beats pure athletic talent

Earning potential combines athletic ability and social media following. An athlete who is exceptional at their sport but lacks notoriety earns far less than a mediocre player with millions of followers.

“If you are good at your sport and have good socials, you're in high earning potential”

Agents hold the information advantage

Agents working with multiple athletes accumulate market data across schools and negotiations. This gives them leverage to negotiate higher deals, while unrepresented athletes face massive information gaps.

“A good agent is an individual with information that can help the athlete make a more informed decision”

The $50,000 versus $500,000 problem

An unrepresented athlete might accept $50,000 thinking it's life-changing, unaware their teammate with an agent negotiated $500,000 for the same position. This information asymmetry costs athletes millions.