High School Momentum, Collectives vs. Their Own Schools, Adidas +/-
Name, Image, Likeness Insider uses proprietary data and expert insights to explain the latest NIL developments.
THE MOMENTUM OF HIGH SCHOOL NIL
Student-Athlete Insights NIL Research Poll - 2022
In the last several days, the high school athletic association in two more states - Iowa and Massachusetts - and the District of Columbia gave their approval for high school athletes to earn income by way of their name, image, and likeness. That brings the total to 17 (16 states and DC.) Here’s the complete list as of 8/21/22:
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
DC
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota
Utah
There are notable and vocal holdouts including Texas (high school sports’ most populous state), Ohio, and most of the Southeast. But make no mistake: the DC approval is significant in that it results in 1/3rd of the country now allowing high school NIL - all in less than 13 months since NIL was approved at the college level.
Why It Matters: Momentum is clearly on the side of high school NIL. When athletic association around the country began to vote on high school NIL, it first looked like political leanings would indicate the state’s direction, with left leaning, progressive states approving it. But that has not proven to be the case, with a least 7 states who’ve approved NIL for high school athletes considered politically conservative. So what’s the source of that momentum? Well it appears that lawmakers are getting the message from their constituents; according to our recent surveys, 74% of high school prospects (those who intend to play in college) have an interest in NIL. That’s even greater than the number of current college student-athletes who have an interest in NIL. Let’s hope high school association move quickly to educate their student-athletes.
COLLECTIVES VS. (THEIR OWN) SCHOOLS
First reported by the LA Times and later by SI, Sports Business Journal, and other media is the growing rift between USC’s athletic department and a new USC collective called Student Body Right. USC has been one of the most aggressive institutions in college sports with regard to an NIL strategy, including being the first to partner with an agency, BLVD, to support their student-athletes. Oh, and there is that little decision to leave the PAC-12 and head to the Big Ten which to has NIL implications! But a group of USC donors appear to be unsatisfied and are determined to keep up with the joneses (aka other collectives.) In response, USC is said to have voiced their displeasure to Student Body Right.
Why It Matters: Back in May the NCAA provided additional “guidance” with regards to collectives. It made specific mention that collectives were not to influence the recruiting process by, among other things, dangling NIL deals as inducements. While the NCAA would have a difficult time holding collectives accountable directly if they were to break these rules, it can hold the institution accountable for the behavior of its boosters - and collectives. Thus, USC is taking a proactive approach to be collective-free and mitigate potential NCAA entanglements brought on by their actions.
This collective vs. (its own) School is the first public spat, but probably not the first overall and certainly not the last.
I’M GUESSING I’LL NEVER WORK FOR ADIDAS AFTER THIS 🙄
Adidas has managed to stir up in me all that I feel is right with NIL - and what I find frustrating - at the same time.
Let’s start with the good stuff.
A few weeks ago, Adidas signed 15 incredible female student-athletes. The group represents multiple universities and sports. The individual resumes of these women (see the list here) is inspiring. And what’s more is that Adidas is activating these partnerships in precisely the way that NIL needs by featuring them in brand marketing campaigns.
So what am I cynical about? This past March, Adidas made a PR splash when it said it would create a network of more than 50,000 student-athletes across 23 sports and all genders at 109 Division I universities. As CNN and other pointed out at the time, “Adidas did not say how much college athletes will be paid.” As happy as I am that these 15 women are earning well-deserved NIL income with such a successful brand, it seems unlikely that 49,985 other student-athletes will get similar treatment…so what exactly will come of that network? How will those athletes be paid? Will it be the dreaded coupon code deal (i.e. athlete makes a small commission from anyone using their coupon code at purchase?)
Why It Matters: Adidas has been one of few big brands to try leverage student-athletes as only a big brand can. As I said in a recent Sports Business Journal “Op-Ed”, what’s lacking in NIL that would ensure future success is best-in-class brand activation. Brands are the engine in the sports industry. They provide both the money and the visibility that far exceeds what an athlete can create on their own.
I hope that Adidas continues down the path it has started on with these first 15 student-athletes…and finds a way to deliver on its promise of opportunity for many others.
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.