For over a century, collegiate athletes generated millions of dollars for their schools and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), yet were unable to earn any money themselves. For a while, the justification for this was that collegiate athletes are not professionals and thus are not owed money, even if they are bringing it in. However, this rhetoric was increasingly challenged over the years, and culminated in a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that continues to shape the college sports landscape.
In July 2021, the Supreme Court reached a unanimous ruling on the NCAA vs. Alston case, determining that the NCAA was limiting education-related benefits, which violated antitrust laws. Although this case did not directly allow student-athletes to earn money, it made it clear that the NCAA’s restrictions on profits for athletes would not hold up in court, and paved the way for policies that allowed Name, Image, and Likeness deals (NILs).
NIL is the legal right a person has to control the way in which their image is used. For years, collegiate athletes signed this right away to the NCAA, but since 2021, they have gotten this right back. This means student-athletes can now earn compensation for autographs, social media endorsements and advertisements, appearances at events, and other similar ventures while maintaining their collegiate athletic eligibility. As of 2025, 32 states have passed more specific NIL laws, with others, including Massachusetts, still considering proposed legislation.
The impacts of NIL deals were seen immediately. For the first time in history, student-athletes could finally benefit from the brands they built. The estimated value for the NIL market for the 2025-2026 athletic seasons, according to Opendorse, is $2.55 billion, an almost $1 billion increase from the previous year. Research at the University of Florida has reported that NIL deals are also making a significant impact for athletes coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, giving them a particularly empowering sense of independence. Beyond financial gain and the right to control how their image is used, many athletes are using their platforms to speak up about issues important to them and build connections with fans. Still, with the quick change came tension, particularly with coaches and institutions.
While most receptions have been positive, there are a few coaches and critics who have noted the negative impact of these deals. Most of these comments came from coaches who claimed that athletes were now demanding too much and making decisions from a purely economic standpoint. Maryland football coach Mike Locksley complained that one student-athlete threatened to transfer if he was not given a $100,000 deal. Other coaches have said that recruits’ attitudes have become entitled and transactional with the rise of NIL deals, with 17-year-old high school students giving coaches lists of demands.
The range of how much athletes earn is vast. Within the top 10 earners for the 2024-25 seasons, nine were male athletes, with seven being football players. The disparity between athletes comes from differences in sport popularity, media exposure, and personal branding. The top five earners all made over $3.5 million: Texas football player Arch Manning, Duke basketball player Cooper Flagg, Miami football player Carson Beck, LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne, and OSU football player Jeremiah Smith.
With the 9-0 Supreme Court ruling allowing NIL policies to be made, collegiate athletes, for the first time after a century of uncompensated work, are allowed to profit from their brands. While the ruling received some backlash, it is undeniable that the world of NILs has allowed for athlete empowerment and a changing definition of what it means to be a student-athlete. The NIL era marks a pivotal moment in NCAA history, where student-athletes have more freedom to shape their own paths.