Last Updated on January 9, 2026 by Chicago Policy Review Staff
For decades, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) prohibited student-athletes from profiting off their name, image, and likeness (NIL). That changed in 2021 when the Supreme Court, in NCAA v. Alston, held that the NCAA could not restrict education-related benefits for athletes. Although the ruling did not mandate NIL rights directly, it signaled that the NCAA’s amateurism model was legally vulnerable and opened the door for the organization to lift its ban on athlete compensation. Within months, the NCAA issued an interim policy allowing student-athletes to earn from endorsements, sponsorships, and entrepreneurial ventures. This decision unleashed a new marketplace projected to surpass $1.5 billion by 2025. Yet four years into the NIL era, that market operates with no federal oversight, leaving athletes to navigate a patchwork of state laws, conflicting disclosure rules, and inconsistent protections.
The NCAA’s NIL database shows that the average student-athlete earns about $21,000, while the median athlete earns under $500, illustrating a vast gap between top earners and the majority of players. Power Five, which consists of the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-2 Conference, and Southeastern Conference (SEC), athletes benefit from multimillion-dollar collective deals and brand partnerships, while athletes at smaller institutions rarely see meaningful returns. According to HOK’s NIL’s Impact on College Sports report, NIL earnings currently stem from three main sources: collectives, brand partnerships, and athlete-led entrepreneurial ventures, with a fourth revenue stream expected in 2025 that will allow universities to share roughly $20 million per school with players. This projection comes from anticipation that once schools begin distributing a share of broadcast, sponsorship, and postseason revenue directly to athletes. Power Five programs are projected to have the financial capacity to contribute amounts around $20 million. This shift is not federal legislation; rather, it is market-driven, shaped by recent settlements and ongoing antitrust pressure. As larger programs generate the bulk of media and game-day revenue, they will also be the ones able to distribute the greatest per-athlete share. This change will likely deepen the divide between major programs and smaller schools, concentrating NIL wealth in football and basketball because those two sports dominate television contracts, drive ticket sales, and anchor university sponsorship agreements. As a result, collectives and brands invest disproportionately in athletes from those sports, reinforcing the existing resource gap.
This economic imbalance mirrors the regulatory one. States have raced to pass NIL laws to attract talent and protect local universities, in the process producing widely divergent standards. Some states mandate detailed reporting of NIL contracts, while others explicitly bar disclosure. Twenty states currently compel athletes to share NIL deal data, while six states classify that information as confidential. The result is a fragmented system where an athlete’s rights depend more on location than on fair and consistent policy.
The NCAA’s 2024 transparency rule was meant to address this inconsistency by requiring disclosure of any NIL agreement exceeding $600. Under this rule, schools must collect contract terms and compensation data and then share de-identified summaries with the NCAA. In theory, this would create a centralized NIL database that will allow athletes to understand market rates and avoid exploitative contracts. But enforcement remains uncertain. Legal challenges, such as the 2024 federal injunction in Tennessee blocking limits on NIL contracts, have delayed the rule’s rollout. Without sustained implementation, NIL data remains largely inaccessible, leaving athletes vulnerable to manipulation by agents, boosters, and collectives.
Transparency is not just an economic issue but one of equity. Georgetown Law’s Technology Review notes that the lack of verified NIL data perpetuates gender and racial disparities by obscuring how deals are distributed across different groups of athletes. Male athletes in revenue-generating sports capture most NIL income because they receive the majority of national broadcasts, donor attention, and collective funding. At the same time, Black athletes are overrepresented in those revenue sports yet remain disproportionately vulnerable to predatory contracts and inconsistent state protections. Women’s teams and athletes from smaller programs struggle for visibility and bargaining power. Without a federal mandate for consistent disclosure, Title IX enforcement mechanisms cannot accurately assess whether schools distribute NIL opportunities equitably.
Despite bipartisan recognition of the problem, Congress has failed to enact NIL legislation. Scholars at the Houston Law Review point to several causes: state-level self-interest, university resistance to oversight, and the NCAA’s desire to retain authority without assuming legal responsibility. This deadlock allows wealthier programs to continue benefiting from a weak regulatory structure.
Market incentives also discourage reform. HOK’s analysts estimate that Power Five programs will soon share tens of millions in direct revenue with athletes because their media contracts, donor networks, and postseason payouts far exceed those of smaller institutions. Georgetown Law’s Technology Review observes that these programs already attract the majority of collective funding, brand deals, and national exposure, creating little incentive for them to support uniform federal standards that might narrow their advantages. Scholars writing in the Houston Law Review similarly argue that wealthier universities view federal oversight as a potential threat to the competitive edge they gain from operating under favorable state laws. The existing policy vacuum persists because it allows those already benefiting from the system to maintain dominance without the scrutiny or obligations a federal framework would impose.
The consequences extend beyond sports. The absence of coherent policy undermines public confidence in higher education governance, exposes universities to antitrust risks, and intensifies the perception that NIL is an unregulated labor market. The longer Congress delays action, the more NIL diverges from its educational purpose. The NCAA introduced NIL to allow athletes to benefit from their own publicity rights while still participating in an education-centered system, not to create an opaque marketplace where compensation depends on donor politics and inconsistent state rules.
Congress should also create an independent NIL oversight body with authority to audit data, enforce compliance, and issue guidance similar to how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau governs financial practices. Such an entity could harmonize state and NCAA standards while preserving athlete privacy and institutional autonomy.
The NIL era has transformed college athletics into a multibillion-dollar enterprise but continues to operate without coherent oversight. The absence of federal policy has produced an inequitable system defined by opacity and privilege. A federal NIL framework grounded in transparency, fairness, and accountability is essential to restore balance. Student-athletes deserve consistent protections no matter where they play, and the future of college sports depends on establishing those protections now.