Name, Image, and Likeness in College Athletics
Understanding NIL through the lens of the U-M athletics program
—By Colby O’Connor
As a child whose father was a Division 1 college football player at Auburn University, I felt pressured to pursue a future in collegiate athletics. Each week, I spent over 30 hours perfecting my craft in lacrosse, which often felt more like a job than a sport. After receiving multiple collegiate offers to pursue lacrosse, I had to decide whether to continue this “job” at the next level. I instead decided to focus on academics at the University of Michigan, realizing this sport would likely not generate income for myself and my family.
Today, this reality has changed. In July 2021, college athletics made a tremendous shift that many former athletes, including my father, had long awaited. The Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Alston that college athletes would be allowed to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL), allowing them to monetize their personal brand while maintaining their amateur status in collegiate athletics. What was once a rigid landscape where student-athletes could only receive scholarships and limited housing aid is now a booming market where athletes, universities, alumni networks, and businesses collide. This article explores how NIL is reconfiguring the collegiate sports ecosystem, raising possibilities and concerns for athletes, universities, and fans alike.
History and legal context of NIL
To fully grasp the significance of NIL, it is essential to understand its historical context. In 1956, the NCAA first permitted athletic scholarships for student-athletes, but this compensation was limited to covering education-related expenses, as noted in the NIL Timeline. Nearly 60 years later, in 2014, Northwestern University football players challenged the system to be classified as employees. As the pressure for change persisted, California led the way in 2019 with the “Fair Pay to Play Act,” becoming the first state to pass legislation prohibiting the NCAA or its schools from punishing student-athletes who earned compensation through their NIL. This momentum culminated in the landmark 2021 NCAA v. Alston case, which resulted in the NCAA adopting a policy allowing, for the first time, student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness without fear of penalty. Importantly, the NCAA left the regulation of NIL to individual states, creating a patchwork of policies across the country.
Michigan is one of these states that decided to act on NIL compensation. In Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed House Bill 5217 into law on December 30, 2020, enabling collegiate student-athletes to profit from their NIL. This law allows athletes to sign endorsement deals, participate in advertising campaigns, and hire agents or attorneys to help secure these opportunities.
While the legal framework for NIL is in place, the business of NIL continues to evolve. Currently, many NIL deals are facilitated by “collectives,” or independent organizations, often formed by alumni and superfans, that financially support student-athletes. At the University of Michigan, Champion’s Circle and Valiant Management are the leading collectives, both headed by Jared Wangler. These collectives started as an agency business, looking to generate revenue for college athletes through talent representation, licensed products, social media, and merchandising. However, today, these businesses have evolved towards booster involvement, which makes up a much higher percentage of overall NIL offerings and leverages alumni and fans making donations. Looking ahead, the NCAA is exploring a revenue-sharing model, which, if approved, would allow schools in the four power conferences to share up to 22% of their revenue with athletes. This could translate into as much as $23 million annually for players over the next decade, representing a significant shift in how athletes are compensated.
Positive impact of NIL
Given its extensive history, NIL is making a clear, positive impact on collegiate athletics, especially by empowering athletes and leveling the playing field. Wangler emphasized how NIL gives athletes the chance to capitalize on their hard work and personal brands in a way that was previously unimaginable. “Before NIL, there was a ridiculous double standard. Athletes couldn’t promote their personal brand, even though they were the backbone of college sports,” Wangler explained. Now, athletes, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, have an opportunity to support themselves and their families through endorsements, merchandise deals, and social media campaigns.
According to the Sports Business Journal, 20% of Division I collegiate athletes benefited from NIL, equating to an average income from NIL deals for student-athletes ranging from $1,000 to $10,000. Looking ahead, these numbers are expected to grow across all sports. This includes lower revenue-generating collegiate sports. Like many athletes at the University of Michigan, Mara Janess, a U-M junior on the Women’s Golf Team, came to school with no intention of monetary benefit and purely out of love for the sport. However, Mara notes that since NIL expansion, “I have had the chance to use my platform to bring awareness to women’s golf, partnering with major brands, and seizing the opportunity to benefit from my hard work.” She emphasizes that NIL has not only provided financial opportunities, such as social media deals, but also a way to spotlight lesser-known sports, particularly for women athletes.
Additionally, NIL has revolutionized fan engagement. With crowdfunding initiatives like the ones Wangler runs, fans are now more directly involved in supporting athletes. Over 11,000 contributors have pooled resources to support Michigan athletes, creating a sense of community and personal connection between fans and players. NIL provides athletes with financial backing, enhances their visibility, and grants them more control over their public image and future opportunities, fostering dynamic connections between athletes, fans, and alumni that reshape college sports for the better.
Challenges between universities and competitive balance
While there are many positives about the implementation of NIL into collegiate sports, it is also important to address some downsides. One major downside has been the deterrence from athletes prioritizing the team dynamics and caring far greater about the compensation they receive. An example of this has come to light due to University of Nevada, Las Vegas quarterback Matthew Sluka. CNN reported that Sluka was “verbally promised a minimum of $100,000 from a UNLV assistant coach, when he committed to play football at UNLV. Upon his arrival to the school, he has yet to receive any compensation and UNLV’s NIL collective denies any claims of promising this money. Sluka has since decided to quit the team. Sluka’s case could set a precedent for athletes prioritizing financial gain over team commitment.
This disparity is already affecting recruitment. Athletes are increasingly drawn to programs that can offer the best NIL deals, shifting the focus away from athletic development and academic fit toward financial incentives. As Avery Fantucci, a Junior on the women’s softball team at Michigan notes, “NIL sometimes takes away from the team aspect of college sports, focusing too much on money where it not only diminishes the traditional collegiate sports experience but also threatens to undermine team unity.”
Another significant concern surrounding NIL is its impact on competitive balance within collegiate athletics. While NIL offers student-athletes unprecedented opportunities to profit from their personal brands, it has introduced disparities that challenge the fairness of competition. As Fantucci pointed out, sports like softball, where NIL involvement is minimal compared to high-revenue sports like football and basketball, are feeling the negative effects. Per Sports Illustrated, currently 72.2% of overall NIL spending goes to football players and 21.2% to men’s basketball players, leaving less than 7% for all other sports combined. This uneven distribution of resources threatens to widen the gap between major revenue-generating sports and less funded programs, leaving athletes in sports like softball with fewer opportunities to capitalize on their talent.
Moreover, the influx of money into college sports through NIL blurs the line between amateur and professional athletics, further challenging the foundational principles of the NCAA. John Bacon, a longtime Michigan sports journalist, argues that NIL compensates for the lack of minor leagues in sports like basketball and football, stating, “College is now the minor leagues. NIL allows for athletes to develop before turning professional while still enjoying the monetary benefits of minor league sports.” Schools now face the challenge of managing NCAA compliance while competing on an uneven playing field, as NIL empowers athletes but also amplifies existing inequalities, leaving some programs struggling to keep pace.
Lastly, as athletes become more focused on generating revenue for academic institutions rather than solely on team dynamics, schools may face pressure to cut lower-revenue sports programs. For example, programs like the University of Michigan, which prides itself on offering 29 varsity sports, could be forced to reduce offerings to compete with schools like the University of Tennessee, which offers fewer than 20 varsity sports but focuses more on maximizing NIL opportunities. While this could be the case, current Michigan Athletic Director Warde Manuel wrote a letter to UofM athletes and alumni saying “We are firm in our decision not to eliminate any sports or reduce any sports below their current scholarship allotment.”
Transfer portal and talent distribution
Another important consideration when examining the impact of NIL on college sports is its effect on the transfer portal as well as talent distribution throughout the college athletics landscape. The introduction of NIL has significantly altered the dynamics of the transfer portal, giving athletes more leverage in deciding where to play. When determining where to play, Norm Hitzges, Sports Radio Host on KTCK The Ticket claims in Pearson Partners that the NCAA no longer leads college sports, as “college sports are leaving the NCAA behind.”
Jared Wangler noted that while the transfer portal was initially created to provide athletes with more freedom, NIL has amplified its impact, especially regarding recruitment and talent distribution. With the promise of lucrative NIL deals, athletes are more incentivized to transfer to schools offering greater financial opportunities, shifting the focus from athletic development, culture fit, and playing time to potential earnings. This trend has led to what some call “pay-for-transfer” situations, where athletes, like Stanford softball pitcher NiJaree Canady, who received $1.2 million to transfer to Texas Tech, are lured away from their original programs by bigger NIL packages. There are also “pay-to-play” situations similar to Bryce Underwood, who has been promised $10.5 million in NIL to decommit from Louisiana State University and come to the University of Michigan to play football. While some argue that NIL deals could create an uneven playing field, Davis Warren contends that talent distribution at the top level has never been better. “Before NIL, only a handful of programs engaged in under-the-table deals, but now every program can legally offer NIL opportunities,” he explains. However, Warren acknowledges that while teams ranked 1 through 60 are benefiting, lower-tier teams may still struggle to keep pace.
Ultimately, these student-athletes are optimizing on their newfound ability to profit while partaking in collegiate sports, but these players also understand that at the core, their sports are about playing. Warren says that “NIL makes guys less willing to sit for 2-3 years.” When faced with the option of earning more money with a program where they might receive less playtime, athletes often choose programs that offer more on-field experience, hoping to secure their lifelong dream of reaching the professional leagues.
University of Michigan NIL
At the University of Michigan, NIL has become a powerful tool for athlete empowerment, although the school initially lagged behind other top programs in embracing it. Jared Wangler has played a pivotal role in helping Michigan athletes capitalize on NIL. His organizations have led efforts to connect athletes with alumni and fans through crowdfunding initiatives, raising close to $20 million this year alone from both donations by alumni and fans and agency deals with partners, with 100% of all contributions going directly to the athletes. Michigan quarterback Davis Warren emphasizes that the majority of NIL deals, “around 80-90%,” are brokered through collectives that work closely with donors and brands. While former Michigan head coach Jim Harbaugh initially wanted to play a more hands-on role with these collectives, the program now has a dedicated GM managing NIL operations. This shift has helped streamline partnerships between athletes and brands, ensuring athletes like Warren can secure deals that resonate personally to him, such as his “You Can Survive” brand ambassador role with car dealership Lafontaine and ambassador role for local golf simulator company Optishot.
In addition to its growing NIL presence, the University of Michigan is navigating financial changes related to new NCAA rules and backpay obligations for athletes. As stated by Manuel, all Division I athletes from 2016 to 2021 are eligible for NIL backpay. Already providing $35 million in financial aid for student-athletes, Michigan now faces increasing educational costs by $29 million in the next fiscal year due to new NCAA scholarship limits allowing schools to offer scholarships equivalent to the number of roster spots. This commitment to athlete support, even amid increasing financial pressures, demonstrates Michigan’s dedication to maintaining its broad-based athletics program.
Future considerations for UofM
Name, Image, and Likeness is transforming collegiate athletics, presenting both exciting opportunities and complex challenges for athletes and universities alike. As NIL evolves, key developments like collective bargaining and the involvement of larger financial players could pave the way for a more sustainable system. For institutions like the University of Michigan, adapting to this shifting environment means leveraging alumni networks, educating students, and fostering a community that balances athletic success with academic excellence. As Athletic Director Manuel emphasizes, Michigan remains committed to providing “championship-level support” to its teams, but the central question persists: how can Michigan preserve the essence of collegiate sports while navigating the dynamic and commercialized future of NIL?
Feature Photo, The Big House; Photo Credit, Colby O’Connor