Name, Image, Likeness deals, known as NIL, stormed into college sports in the summer of 2021. The goal was to ensure that collegiate athletes get fairly compensated in their efforts to grow their personal brand while benefiting the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) as a whole.

But four years later, the jury is still out on whether NIL deals have positively or negatively affected the college sports landscape — in short, are they actually good for the college athletes they are meant to serve? So far, for a variety of reasons, NIL deals seem to be doing more good than harm. 

Since collegiate sports were founded in 1852, there was never any way for players to profit off their names. Colleges, particularly the larger, more sports-based ones, often treated their players as instruments, utilizing them to grow the institution’s overall brand without adequately compensating players for their contributions on the field.

While the colleges themselves grew richer through their successful sports programs, the only way players could benefit financially was if they made it to the professional level of their sport.

This all changed in 2021, when two court cases, NCAA vs. Alston and House vs. NCAA, paved the way for collegiate athletes to be compensated for their efforts through advertisements and the paid use of their name, image and likeness.

Now, each collegiate athlete is eligible for NIL deals, but it’s up to the athlete to take advantage of what is in front of them: the better the athlete plays, and the more attention they receive, the more deals they will attain.

The Next College Student Athlete (NCSA), the organization responsible for connecting middle and high school athletes with college coaches, defines Name, Image, Likeness as “the three elements that make up ‘right of publicity,’ a legal concept used to prevent or allow the use of an individual to promote a product or service.”

“The right of publicity is generally used to protect against the misuse of an individual’s name, image and likeness for commercial promotion,” according to the NCSA.

The establishment of NIL, ensuring that athletes can secure exclusive deals with select brands and profit from their work, has already had a notable impact on athletes and their financial future.

For example, WNBA superstar Caitlin Clark has not only revolutionized women’s basketball with her generational play since her University of Iowa days, but has also secured at least a dozen NIL deals since 2021.

According to ON3, Clark has an NIL value of $3.4 million. This figure represents the total amount estimated to be earned from her brand deals, which include top companies like Nike, State Farm and Gatorade.

NIL deals have opened doors especially for collegiate women’s athletes such as basketball stars Juju Watkins and Paige Bueckers, as well as LSU gymnastics standout Livvy Dunne.

A great example of NIL deals reshaping men’s collegiate sports is University of Colorado Boulder football star, and potential number one overall pick in the 2025 NFL Draft, Travis Hunter.

Hunter has an NIL value of $5.7 million, according to ON3, and his top deals include Adidas, United Airlines and Celsius.

However, some believe the downsides of NIL deals actually outweigh the positives.

SportsEpreneur cites distraction as a primary reason NIL deals are not succeeding. With collegiate athletes focusing on gaining endorsement deals, they say, their focus on studies and other aspects of college life are hindered.

Opponents also argue that after athletes secure deals, they often believe they have done enough in their athletic field and will therefore not work as hard to fulfill their potential.

For instance, quarterback Nico Iamaelava fell out with his then-school, University ofTennessee, in mid-April due to the lack of deals he was securing. This distraction ultimately saw Iamaleava leave the university and he is still scrambling for options.

Another concern among opponents is the way the NCAA has handled the establishment of NIL deals, which have damaged the reputation of college sports. “The NCAA miscalculated its position in the Alston case and was eviscerated before the United States Supreme Court,” stated Jay Bilas of ESPN in 2022.

The dawn of NIL deals marks a seismic shift in collegiate athletics, moving them away from a purely amateur model to one more resembling professional sports.

Yet the true measure of NIL’s success may lie not just in the deals secured, but in how universities, the NCAA, and athletes themselves adapt to integrate these commercial opportunities responsibly within their academic and athletic pursuits.