"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Name, Image, Likeness Insider uses proprietary data and expert insights to explain the latest NIL developments.
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” I’ve always loved that quote, often attributed to U.S Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1983. Risking obvious irony, let me just say that I’m not big on opinions. And in my experience, the lower the barrier to opine, the greater the volume of opinions. I’m a much bigger fan of facts and evidence. While there is not as much NIL data as we’d like, there is enough to take aim at commonly repeated, not entirely supported, opinions.
“RECRUITING IS NOW ALL ABOUT NIL”
Student-Athlete Insights Survey of 300 Power Five Student-Athletes, August 2022
The overall impact of NIL on all of college athletics (from DI to DIII, all 24 sports) is negligible. You really have to apply a number of filters before that statement becomes inaccurate. The data points to NIL greatly impacting recruiting at Power Five schools > in football > and men’s and women’s basketball. Here’s a fact, not an opinion: NIL has the potential to be a major impact on the recruitment of a total of 7,797 student-athletes or 1.55% of the total number of about 500,000 NCAA student-athletes. That’s 5,865 Power Five football players and 1,932 Power Five men’s and women’s basketball players. (I’m assuming only scholarship players in my calculations, but you get the point.)
First in 2020 (pre-NIL) and again last month, I surveyed 1,000+ student-athletes on their selection criteria. I included athletes in DI, II, and III. The results were almost identical over those two time periods. 98.45% of student-athletes choose an institution post-NIL almost identically to how they chose an institution pre-NIL. They care mostly about team culture, coaching, academic reputation, facilities, and the alumni network. And even at those Power Five programs, about three-quarters of student-athletes say NIL is just one of many important factors that they consider when making a college choice and is not the most important one.
Why It Matters: One of my favorite coaches in college football (Lane Kiffin) has said in Sports Illustrated about recruiting that, “…the No. 1 thing will be (NIL) money.” I think that contributes to the public’s misunderstanding of NIL. As I’ve said before, he may be correct, but at most he’s correct about 1.55% of college sports. The issue is that the general public doesn’t understand the breadth of NIL (they think it’s almost exclusively about pro sport style endorsements.) The majority of athletic administrators, confidentially, don’t support NIL. But more than 70% of student-athletes have an interest in pursuing NIL. For the record, I’m not saying that any of this is Lane Kiffin’s fault 😂 (so I don’t want any email from Ole Miss fans/coaches/alumni/administrators.) But if we want to improve NIL in the years to come, we need to align the interests of these cohorts and that begins with agreeing on the facts.
“NIL IS MAKING ATHLETES RICH”
The median compensation per NIL activity is about $60. Whether it’s social media or an appearance, on average, it takes a student-athlete about 3 hours to complete an NIL activity. That works out to be the same hourly wage as a UPS driver - and not many of us walk around bemoaning how rich UPS drivers are getting.
Now are there some student-athletes that are cashing in? Of course. Roughly 10 student-athletes will make $1 million+ and possibly 100 more athletes could make $100,000+. But again, that's about half of 1% of the 176,000 DI athletes.
Why It Matters: According to Opendorse, since July 1, 2021, the average compensation for the student-athletes on their platform has been $1,300. I’m not questioning their data. They work on the campuses of many Power Five schools where large deals by a handful of athletes are likely to happen. It’s really just a matter of median vs. average. As we consume NIL information, it’s important that we read carefully and understand the implications.
“NIL HAS BEEN GREAT FOR FEMALE ATHLETES”
Women student-athletes are getting over 40% of NIL deals and women’s sports make up 5 of the top 10 NIL income earning sports. So if those were the only data points, you’d probably say NIL has been good for female athletes.
But when you look beyond the raw number of deals and into the actual compensation by gender, it’s a different story. The gender wage gap (the “average difference between the compensation for men and women who are working”) is 74%. Said another way, women are being paid 26% of what men are being paid. By comparison, the pay gap for U.S. workers ages 18-23 is about 2%. Now before you start telling me about Page Bueckers, Livvy Dunne, and the Cavinder twins, let me remind you that those well-deserved big-earners are 4 individuals and don’t nearly represent most student-athletes.
Why It Matters: When new legislation is created, correcting inequities right away is critical. For evidence of what happens when action is not taken, look at the imperfect place we are today with Title IX. I urge you to read the incredible reporting by the the University of Maryland’s Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism on a piece called Unlevel Playing Fields, covering the impact and implementation of Title IX 50 years later. Among the reasons that the system is failing girls in sports today is that Title IX education and enforcement 50 years ago was not 100% successful. Now five decades later, NIL for women athletes is showing many of the same characteristics.
I consult with brands, agencies, and sports organizations on Name, Image, and Likeness - and provide on-demand courses for parents, athletes, coaches & administrators. I teach NIL in College Sports at the University of Vermont’s Grossman School of Business. I’m a SportsBusiness Journal Forty Under 40 Award winner and former co-founder of the marketing agency Fuse, which I operated for 20 years before selling in 2019.