The price of potential: How NIL is breaking college football

From $12 million high-school deals to legal vacuums – why the UK must learn from America’s “Wild West”

What is NIL

Name, Image, Likeness refers to an individual’s right of publicity: the ability to control and profit from their own identity. It may sound like a harmless concept, but this term has fundamentally redefined the landscape of college football.  

In 2021, for the first time, the body that governs college athletics (the NCAA) allowed players to profit from these rights. But why does this matter? Before 2021, most players could receive money only from sports scholarships; now, they can be paid via a revenue-sharing pool (salary) capped at $20.5 million, creating a true Wild West landscape.

NIL investments have exploded, with key players earning more than $5 million per year. These actions have redefined the competitiveness of many programs, the progression and growth of players, and increased pressure on Head Coaches and Athletic Directors.

The price of potential

One could argue that if a player has proven talent, it is not unreasonable to reward them. NFL player salaries are often in the tens of millions; however, the issue arises where “potential talents” are being given the same luxury as “proven players”.

In 2024, freshman Bryce Underwood signed a reported four-year, $12 million deal to become Michigan’s QB. The Wolverines went 9-3 in the regular season in his first year, lost in their postseason bowl game against Texas, missed the playoffs, and suffered a stinging loss to arch-rivals Ohio State. The player is not to blame; he is a developing talent playing in front of 100,000 demanding fans every week, but unfortunately, the numbers do not give him the time to develop.

NIL is damaging the sport itself; it fundamentally discourages teams from recruiting high schoolers

The same issues are mirrored in Premier League football, where players with price tags exceeding £80 million are expected to perform, and when they do not, neither the board nor the fans are particularly keen. Darwin Nunez, Mykhailo Mudryk, and Romelu Lukaku are all big names who did not back up their price tags, leaving fans with a bitter taste in their mouths.

From development to marketplace

But there’s another element here, which is the real problem: NIL is damaging the sport itself. It fundamentally discourages teams from recruiting high schoolers and instead picks the “proven talent” from the transfer portal. This means a senior player from a lower-ranked team is more likely to be selected than a high school three-star (rated out of five) who is unproven at the collegiate level.

On the face of it, this does not seem inherently bad, as proven players have a higher chance of making it, but it is important to realise that not all players are ready in high school to be regarded as future NFL talent. The greatest QB of all time, Tom Brady, was a three-star recruit who served as a backup at Michigan for two years. Travis Kelce was a two-star recruit, and Patrick Mahomes was also only three. NIL and the transfer portal are accelerating evaluation of recruits to the high school level, which means college is no longer what it used to be – a developing ground for talent to grow. It instead demands immediate Return On Investment for the programs.

A legal vacuum

There are also more sinister issues surrounding NIL, including significant legal complexities in which players sign deals without proper legal counsel on unfavourable terms. Coaches are dealing with poor legal advisors because player “agents” are often just their roommate – an actual observation by Texas Longhorns Head Coach Steve Sarkisian.

Having an 18-year-old athlete enter binding legal agreements with a major entity without proper counsel is simply unfair

Ohio State star WR now NFL player Marvin Harrison Jr almost faced litigation from merchandise giant Fanatics after signing a binding agreement he claims he was unaware of, leaving him potentially liable for actual and punitive damages. This case was ultimately settled outside of the courtroom, but it serves as a warning for future cases. I argue that having an 18-year-old athlete enter binding legal agreements with a major entity without proper counsel is simply unfair, and this ought to be addressed by the NCAA through tighter regulations.

Competitive balance, but at what cost?

With all this said, NIL is here to stay and will not be reversed. Even with the issues outlined above, there have been some positives. Mainly, it has created a far more level playing field across the CFB landscape, with the SEC conference no longer the dominating factor.

This year’s final was between Miami and Indiana, ACC and B1G schools, respectively, and Ole Miss was the only SEC school to reach the semi-finals. The eventual winners, Indiana, were at the bottom of their conference only two seasons ago, finishing 1-8 and finished this season 16-0, claiming the national title. This is mostly thanks to investments from big names such as IU alum Mark Cuban and effective trading in the transfer portal, supported by NIL. In fact, the Heisman trophy winner, awarded to the Most Valuable Player, was QB Fernando Mendoza, a transfer from the University of California, Berkeley (Cal).

What comes next?

Although college athletics in the UK is nowhere near as dominating a force as it is in the US, it does not mean UK universities are unaffected. Players who previously could have joined a UK university may now be poached by US schools. Additionally, those in Premier League academies could be tempted by the lure of NIL money in the States and switch to the other side of the pond.

Financial regulations should be in place to deter them from seeking short-term wins and ignoring the long-term consequences

What needs to be understood is that only a small fraction of players actually makes it to the NFL draft; the rest use their college degrees to find “normal” jobs after graduation.

Of course, athletes should be encouraged to follow their dreams, but financial regulations should be in place to deter them from seeking short-term wins and ignoring the long-term consequences of signing misleading NIL deals.