What Does NIL Mean For SVU?
By Jeremy Brown
July 1st, 2021, the most influential day in all of college athletics, more important than any championships. The day the Nationals Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) first allowed individuals to receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness. Opening the doors that had been closed for so many years. The advent of name, image, and likeness (NIL) regulations has ushered in a transformative era for collegiate athletics within the NCAA. The implications of NIL on student-athletes are profound, as these regulations empower them to capitalize on their personal brand, endorsing products and engaging in commercial opportunities without compromising their eligibility.
This shift has disrupted the traditional dynamics of collegiate sports, offering athletes a chance to monetize their talents and cultivate individual identities. Simultaneously, it has introduced challenges for the NCAA in terms of maintaining a balance between the commercial interests of athletes and preserving the integrity of amateurism in college sports. The impact of NIL on recruitment, team dynamics, and the overall landscape of collegiate athletics is undergoing continuous scrutiny, with ongoing debates about fair compensation and potential consequences. Not only was their game changing for the athletes, it all was a great opportunity for companies to utilize the influence and reach of college athletes. It also gave an opportunity for companies to sign highly profitable athletes early in their careers, building relationships with them that would hopefully last throughout their careers.
Women’s Sports
Women’s sports have seen insane changes, millions of dollars have been made in women’s basketball alone with programs such as LSU having multiple players with 6 and 7 figure deals. But the biggest stand out in women’s basketball has been the Cavender twins. The controversy that followed these twins was unprecedented, after they transferred from Fresno State to Miami, after 3 years, their profitability due to NIL skyrocketed. Their shared TikTok account followers increased 10 fold breaking the millions, as well as their personal ones as well. They received tons of support as well as tons of backlash. The New York Post went as far as saying “Cavinder twins have raked in $2M in NIL deals off their looks — while better athletes come up empty, critics charge” an entire article bashing the twins. Which begs the question. Is NIL more about athletics, profitability or looks?
The New York Post claims its all about their looks.
What really matters?
In the wise words of Zebulen Riley, “It depends,” because in college football, Caleb Williams, a front runner for the Heisman trophy, is getting 2.6 million dollars. On the other side of the spectrum, Arch Manning is making 2.8 million dollars, as a freshman that has barely played all year… but he is profitable because he is the nephew of 2 hall of fame quarterbacks, Eli and Payton Manning. The name of the game is all in profitability. It does not matter if you are bad at your sport (not saying Arch is bad I think he will be very good one day), but if you can influence people to spend, you can and will get paid. In this evolving landscape, athletes’ earning potential extends beyond on-field performance, emphasizing the value of personal brand and market appeal. This shift highlights the complex interplay between talent, influence, and financial success in collegiate sports.
The Boys
Tyler Watts, a men’s volleyball player at Brigham Young University, said when asked about NIL, “A majority of my teammates don’t have them. I’m in the process of getting one from a friend’s company. Football has a thing where people donate money and then it’s split through all the players. They don’t have to do anything. I would say it enhances my experience because we get some special benefits considering how hard we work.” Brigham Spilsbury, one of Tyler’s teammates, said, “Hmmm, honestly any other BYU sport would be better to ask. Hhaha!. But I feel like there’s a lot of NIL opportunities if you pursue, every once in a while they come to the team. Not the majority, probably 10% or so, have set NIL deals. It Definitely enhances the experience and the opportunities it brings. But like I said, I know a lot of athletes from other sports that are day and night compared to before NIL.” The emergence of NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) opportunities in college sports has undeniably altered the landscape, as athletes like Tyler Watts seek partnerships to enhance their experiences. The varied perspectives among teammates, like Brigham Spilsbury, reflect the evolving nature of these opportunities. The few teammates with set NIL deals exemplify the potential for financial gains, underscoring the transformative impact on athletes’ lives.
As this trend continues, it not only reshapes individual experiences but also raises broader questions about the future dynamics between athletes, universities, and commercial entities in collegiate athletics. Why is football a sport that ended the season 5–7 having more opportunities for NIL deals then 19–7 and conference front running volleyball teams? Simply because football is more profitable, it made 72.5 million dollars to their men’s volleyball teams 703 thousand dollars. More people watch football, plain and simple.
Name Over Image and Likeness
Five of the most profitable athletes are football players, but the top grossing player is Bronny James, son of NBA legend, LeBron James, at 6 million. Although he is a solid basketball player, he is not a top player in the nation. Why is he making so much money? Because of his name and his profitability. Number 2 on the list has a similar story. Shedeur Sanders, son of legendary NFL hall of famer Deon Sanders, is estimated at 3.8 million dollars and although they had a great start the Colorado Buffaloes ended bottom of the Pac 12. The substantial earnings of athletes like Bronny James and Shedeur Sanders underscore the profound impact of their family names on marketability. Marketers often recognize the immense brand value associated with the legacies of LeBron James and Deion Sanders, leveraging these established names to generate significant revenue.
While both young athletes showcase talent in their respective sports, their economic success predominantly hinges on the market appeal generated by their iconic family backgrounds. This trend reflects a broader shift in the sports industry, where personal brand and name recognition can often outweigh on-field performance when it comes to attracting lucrative sponsorship deals. In essence, these athletes become not just players but also walking embodiments of powerful, marketable narratives.
Tiktoks Golden Girl
Olivia Dunne, the 20-year-old gymnast, has become a trailblazer in the world of collegiate sports, particularly in the context of the new NIL policy introduced by the NCAA in July 2021. As the highest-paid NCAA female athlete, Dunne’s financial success stems not only from her impressive athletic abilities, but also from her strategic approach to leveraging her personal brand and marketability.
In a recent appearance on the Full Send podcast, Dunne shared insights into her earnings, highlighting a significant milestone in her career. The gymnast, who usually keeps details about money private, revealed that her biggest earnings for a sponsored social media post surpassed six figures, with a ballpark figure exceeding $500,000. This revelation underscores the substantial impact of the NIL policy on athletes like Dunne, enabling them to embrace lucrative sponsorship deals.
Dunne’s estimated net worth of $3.5 million, according to the On3 NIL 100 list, positions her as a prominent figure in the evolving landscape of college sports endorsements. Her journey to the top began with a massive following on social media, cultivated through years of dedication to gymnastics. By the age of 16, she had amassed 100,000 Instagram followers, and her TikTok gained traction during the pandemic, showcasing her extraordinary flips and skills.
The NCAA’s decision to permit student-athletes to earn money from marketing deals marked a pivotal moment in Dunne’s career. A recipient of a full scholarship to Louisiana State University, she seized the opportunity presented by the NIL policy shift. Dunne’s commitment to balancing academics, athletics, and social media demonstrated her pioneering spirit, paving the way for other young athletes, particularly girls, to navigate similar paths.
Dunne’s marketability skyrocketed as brands recognized the value of aligning with her influential persona. Her collaboration with the clothing brand, Vuori, marked the beginning of a successful partnership, with Dunne emphasizing that she selectively chooses deals that resonate with her and her audience. This approach reflects a thoughtful curation of her personal brand, ensuring authenticity in her partnerships.
The gymnast’s seven-figure annual earnings stand as a testament to the transformative power of the NIL policy, allowing athletes like Dunne to capitalize on their market appeal during their college years. This financial flexibility is especially crucial for athletes in sports like gymnastics, where the peak age is typically around 15 years old, leaving a limited window for traditional professional opportunities post-college.
Dunne’s success challenges the traditional narrative surrounding post-collegiate prospects for female gymnasts. In a sports landscape where professional opportunities for women can be limited, particularly compared to their male counterparts, Dunne is setting a precedent for capitalizing on marketability and creating new avenues for financial success.
Furthermore, Dunne’s advocacy extends beyond her personal success. Recognizing the gender disparities in NIL opportunities, she aims to inspire change by demonstrating that women can be equally marketable and successful in leveraging their passions, whether it’s gymnastics, music, or art. Her goal is to reshape perceptions and encourage other female students, both in athletics and beyond, to recognize and utilize their marketability under the NIL policy.
In a world where opportunities for women in NCAA sports are evolving, Olivia Dunne stands as a beacon of progress. Her entrepreneurial aspirations for the future reflect a desire to not only navigate the current landscape but also to contribute to shaping it. As the highest-paid NCAA female athlete, Dunne is not just changing her world; she’s paving the way for a more equitable and inclusive future for female athletes in collegiate sports.
The Interview
Logan Davis, Assistant Athletic Director, notes, “There is a lot of pressure on recruiting, and it has changed the way that universities operate to retain their student athletes.” This quote underscores the profound influence of NIL deals on recruitment strategies and university operations. The competitive nature of securing top talents in the wake of lucrative NIL opportunities has necessitated adaptations in the approach to athlete retention.
He emphasizes the restriction on university involvement in NIL deals, stating, “For the most part, universities are supposed to stay out of finding and organizing and officiating deals for their student athletes.” This articulates the intended separation between educational institutions and the process of athletes securing NIL deals, emphasizing the autonomy expected for student-athletes in navigating these opportunities.
Expressing concern about the unintended consequences of NIL, Davis reflects, “I don’t think the NCAA saw the way that NIL deals would blow up. It wasn’t intended to be a way for boosters to funnel money to student athletes.” Here, he sheds light on the unforeseen developments and potential challenges arising from the explosive growth of NIL deals, diverging from the initial intentions set by the NCAA.
Davis further observes, “NIL deals are not supposed to be university-specific; they’re supposed to follow the athlete. But the way that NIL collectives have become, it has become a major recruiting inducement to get the best athletes to go to certain universities.” This is the unintended consequence of NIL arrangements, where the collective nature of deals has shifted the landscape, turning them into pivotal factors in attracting top talent to specific educational institutions.
Highlighting the unique challenges faced by Southern Virginia, Davis shares, “At Southern Virginia, we don’t have many resources for student athletes, other than education.” This underscores the distinct circumstances of Southern Virginia University, where the emphasis on education is a primary resource for student-athletes, presenting a challenge in the context of the evolving NIL landscape.
He describes the university’s role in guiding students, stating, “Trying to help students understand the rules and regulations, and then make good deals for themselves.” This quote emphasizes the university’s proactive stance in educating student-athletes, assisting them in navigating the complex landscape of NIL regulations and making informed decisions about their deals.
Davis underscores the absence of legislation mandating the reporting of NIL deals, “There is no legislation that says you are required to report your NIL deals to your university.” This highlights a notable gap in the regulatory framework, emphasizing the current lack of standardized reporting requirements for NIL deals, adding a layer of complexity to their management.
While encouraging transparency, he adds, “We encourage our student athletes to report, and you can do that by connecting with me.” This reflects the university’s approach to fostering an environment where student-athletes are encouraged to share information about their NIL deals, albeit without a formalized reporting mandate.
Discussing the future of NILs at Southern Virginia, Davis expresses uncertainty, stating, “I’m not sure what the future of NILs at Southern Virginia University looks like because there is some legislation looking to be passed in the next 6 to 12 months that may change and impact the way NILs operate.” This conveys the dynamic nature of the NIL landscape, with anticipated legislative changes potentially reshaping the university’s approach to NIL activities.
Articulating the university’s stance on partnerships, Davis says, “We would like to see more companies partnering with our student athletes, but we would prefer to see more companies and donors giving directly to the university and our programs.” This quote encapsulates the university’s preference for direct support to the institution and its programs, highlighting a broader perspective on how NIL partnerships can benefit both athletes and the university community.
When asked about the impact of NIL on SVU athletics, Davis emphasizes, “NIL is doing more harm right now when it comes to SVU athletics.” Here, he clarifies that his concern is not about students securing deals, but rather about the broader impact of the evolving NIL landscape on Division III athletics, particularly in terms of financial comparisons and their consequences.
He further states, “I am excited when our students get deals, that isn’t what I mean. What I mean is that there really isn’t a lot of NIL money at D3 as a whole right now.” This quote provides insight into the limited availability of NIL funds in Division III athletics, setting the context for the subsequent discussion on the negative consequences of unhealthy comparisons.
Describing the consequences, he states, “Like social media, unhealthy comparison leads to frustration, decreased confidence, and overall dissatisfaction. And that hurts SVU athletics because it impacts our current athletes, it impacts our recruiting, and it impacts our retention.” Davis articulates the ripple effects of unhealthy comparisons in the NIL landscape, highlighting the potential negative impacts on the satisfaction, confidence, and overall well-being of student-athletes, which, in turn, affect recruitment and retention efforts.
Davis offers a nuanced perspective, countering with, “While NIL opportunities have opened new doors for student-athletes, the evolving landscape presents challenges, particularly for universities with limited resources.” This closing statement encapsulates the complex dynamics and challenges introduced by NIL in the realm of collegiate athletics, emphasizing the need for thoughtful legislation and collective efforts to navigate this transformative era.
In The End
The NIL era has proven to be a game-changer, empowering athletes to venture into commercial opportunities without jeopardizing their eligibility. This shift is evident in the soaring profits of athletes like the Cavinder twins in women’s basketball and high-profile football players such as Caleb Williams and Arch Manning. The surge in earnings is not solely based on athletic prowess but underscores the influence and marketability these athletes bring to the table. However, as the NIL landscape evolves, questions arise about its impact on recruitment, team dynamics, and fairness. The experiences of athletes like Tyler Watts and Olivia Dunne shed light on the varied perspectives within collegiate sports. Watts acknowledges the enhancement of his experience through NIL, while Dunne emerges as a trailblazer, leveraging her gymnastic skills and strategic brand management to become the highest-paid NCAA female athlete.
Despite the opportunities presented by NIL, challenges and unintended consequences have surfaced. There are complexities faced by institutions. The lack of standardized reporting requirements for NIL deals and the potential consequences of unhealthy comparisons in Division III athletics highlight the need for continued adaptation and thoughtful legislation. As the NIL landscape continues to evolve, the future remains uncertain especially with the anticipated legislative changes that would impact the operation of NILs at Southern Virginia University. The university’s preference for direct support to programs, along with Davis’s concern about the broader impact on DIII athletics, underscores the delicate balance that universities and athletes must navigate.
While NIL opportunities open new doors for student-athletes, the evolving landscape presents challenges, particularly for universities with limited resources. The complex interplay between talent, influence, and financial success underscores the need for ongoing dialogue and thoughtful regulation to ensure a fair and sustainable future for collegiate athletics in the era of NIL.
