In the rapidly changing world of college athletics, the introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights in 2021 was supposed to revolutionize opportunities for student-athletes. But as time goes on, it’s clear that while some athletes and programs are thriving, others are left behind in a system that doesn’t feel quite fair.
This blog post takes a closer look at the tangled web of the NIL marketplace. Who’s really cashing in on these new opportunities, and who’s getting left out?
The Birth of NIL: A New Era for College Athletes
NIL rights officially kicked off in 2021 after the NCAA v. Alston case, which found that restrictions on education-related payments broke antitrust law. Suddenly, student-athletes could make money from their name, image, and likeness through things like brand endorsements, social media, and NIL collectives.
At first glance, it looked like a big win for athletes. But the system quickly started to show some serious cracks.
Transparency and Disparities in NIL Compensation
The NIL marketplace is anything but transparent. Some universities, like the University of Colorado, are open about how they distribute NIL money, but plenty of others keep it under wraps, citing privacy or competitive reasons.
This lack of openness means that visibility and existing resources end up playing a huge role in who gets paid. From July 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022, about 71.7 percent of NIL compensation and brand deals went to male athletes.
Most of these deals are clustered in men’s basketball and football. Meanwhile, women’s programs are left with just a sliver of the NIL revenue—even when they’re just as successful, or sometimes more so, than their male counterparts.
Gender Inequity in NIL: A Systemic Issue
The gender gaps in NIL compensation aren’t just random—they’re baked into the system. Title IX is supposed to guarantee equal treatment for men’s and women’s sports, but it doesn’t apply to NIL since the universities aren’t the ones paying athletes directly.
This loophole opens the door for big gender imbalances in who gets NIL opportunities and earnings.
Case Study: University of Virginia’s NIL Landscape
Looking at the University of Virginia, NIL earnings there highlight both the potential and the contradictions of revenue sharing. Football and men’s basketball rake in over half of the total NIL earnings, echoing the national trend of prioritizing those sports.
As of October 2024, the men’s basketball team had earned at least eight times more from NIL deals than the women’s team. But sometimes, performance shakes things up a bit.
The Virginia women’s swimming and diving team, led by stars like Alex and Gretchen Walsh and Kate Douglass, pulled in $1.1 million in NIL revenue by late 2024—more than the football team. Still, the broader system is tilted toward men’s sports, no matter how much star power a women’s team has.
The Role of Institutional Support and Marketability
Institutional backing and marketability are huge factors in NIL success. Programs with strong support and plenty of media exposure naturally attract bigger deals.
Take UCLA gymnast Jordan Chiles. She’s an Olympic gold medalist with nearly two million followers on social media, and she’s been a massive boost for UCLA’s total NIL sponsorships among female athletes. Her endorsements alone made up $1.3 million of the $3.2 million in disclosed NIL sponsorships at UCLA.
The Reality for Most Women Athletes
But for most women athletes, the picture is pretty different. Sure, women often connect well with fans online, but the market just isn’t set up to support them at scale.
Women athletes are more likely to land small NIL deals—think under $100—and less likely to score those middle-tier deals between $1,000 and $19,999. For athletes who aren’t in high-profile or nationally competitive programs, the gap is even wider.
Less visibility and fewer resources make it even harder to access NIL opportunities. The inequities just keep stacking up.
The Need for Transparency and Equity
As Nick Saban asked at the White House in March 2026, *What are the guiding principles for the future of college athletics?* The current NIL system, with all its secrecy and uneven playing field, could really use a more consistent framework.
Institutions need to step up, push for transparency, and tackle these disparities head-on. Otherwise, the NIL era might just end up rebranding the same old inequities under a new name.
Looking Forward: Ensuring Fairness in NIL
To create a more equitable NIL marketplace, a few things probably need to change.
- Enforce Transparency: Universities should be required to disclose how NIL revenue gets distributed. That way, there’s some accountability—and maybe even a shot at fairness.
- Support Women’s Programs: Women’s sports deserve more institutional backing and media exposure. It’s one way to close the gap in NIL opportunities, though it’s not a quick fix.
- Promote Equitable Market Structures: The market should reward performance and visibility across all sports, not just the most popular or profitable ones. Gender shouldn’t be a barrier here, but sometimes it feels like it is.
If you’re curious about the deeper issues and disparities in the NIL marketplace, check out the full article on The Cavalier Daily.
- Schools Covered
- College Football Articles
- Men's College Basketball Articles
- Men's College Soccer Articles
- Women's College Basketball Articles
- Olympic Athlete Articles
- Men's College Baseball Articles
- College Sports Media Professionals Articles
- Hall of Fame Member Articles
- Former College Player Articles
- Game Previews
