The predominant idea is that revenue sharing is the best — if not the only — proper replacement for the current NIL model.
Walker Jones, the executive director of the Ole Miss-focused The Grove Collective, stated, “It certainly is on the minds of all of us right now. I think there’s an understanding that donor-led and fan-led model is not equitable and not sustainable.
“I think it’s wise for these power conferences to figure out a revenue share and to figure out a way to collectively bargain, which would then address donor fatigue — it would add sustainability, and it would give the athletes the ability to truly capitalize on name, image, and likeness, through revenue sharing.”
The schools have taken notice as well, with North Carolina AD Bubba Cunningham telling On3, “I don’t think that the current model will exist going forward. The never-ending need for more resources will continue to be. But how we go about prioritizing and how we go about asking for resources is going to have to change.”
Collectives wouldn’t fade away entirely, but revenue sharing would offer another source for athletes and one that can be regulated to a higher degree. The Johnson V. NCAA court case, which involves D1 student-athletes arguing they should be considered employees, will have huge ramifications on the current landscape and presumably force a revenue-sharing model, so getting ahead of the landmark decision is ideal.
Per On3, the current median revenue for a Power Five athletic program is roughly $126 million, with 41% going to staff, coaches, and severance. As such, those conferences should pave the way toward revenue sharing, specifically the SEC and Big Ten.
A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) would need to occur to ensure the revenue-sharing percentage isn’t too high and every sport is viable. If not, non-revenue sports could be cut entirely, such as golf and cross country, and women’s programs could lose funds.
MORE: Lane Kiffin Gets Candid About NIL — “It’s a Disaster Even Though It Benefits Us at Ole Miss”
Currently, collectives don’t have to comply with Title IX, the federal law that requires universities to provide equal treatment to male and female athletes.
The New York Times detailed how, at top schools, the average men’s basketball player with a collective contract is paid $37,000, while the average women’s player receives $9,000. Additionally, University of Illinois professor Michael LeRoy found that one school paid 89% of its money to football and men’s basketball players.
As for collectives, they’ll need to provide value outside of assisting athletes. Some are already getting ahead, such as CougConnect, which produced the first-ever NIL cruise, where subscribers could go on a four-day carnival cruise and interact with various BYU athletes.
Other examples include:
- Classic City Collective launched a NIL initiative offering short-form videos with ads and purchasable merchandise for Georgia fans.
- Yea Alabama provides online content, autograph events, and a car decal.
- Crimson and Cream includes a cashback/discount offer package, monthly giveaways, trading cards, and more for the Oklahoma faithful.
- Lastly, Dam Nation offers unique merch, decals, and events Beavers aficionados can attend.
If collegiate athletes are deemed employees by the Supreme Court, there is also the issue of the potential CBA prohibiting current NIL transactions. Plus, donors likely wouldn’t want to actually fund someone’s salary.
Thus, if collectives don’t pivot to becoming marketing agencies (not glorified fundraising groups) and supporting athletes outside of football/basketball, most will shut down. That’s to be expected when they run on a market where athletes cannot be paid by schools directly.
We’ll soon see the effects of donor fatigue and other factors on the NIL landscape. A country-wide reduction in NIL spending would only lead to a decrease in average athlete compensation. However, if only schools with struggling programs experience a drop in NIL investment, a significant gap in competitive parity could follow.
Furthermore, the adoption of penalty-free transfers appears to be the first step toward the complete abolishment of transfer restrictions, pushing college football even closer to NFL free agency, where, at the end of each season, a player’s able to leave his current program for the highest bidder.
KEEP READING: Dan Mullen on NIL, Transfer Portal, and the Future of College Football — “It’s Gonna Lead to Free Agency”
College football is filled with unknowns, but we do know one thing: The current model is on expiring time. A new era is being ushered in, and it’s up to the NCAA and the conferences to explore what it will look like.
The evolution of NIL policies is not only a pivotal moment in the history of college sports but also an opportunity to redefine the relationship between athletes, institutions, and fans. For far too long, student-athletes weren’t paid for what they provided for their programs. Now, it’s a question about how they will be paid and how much.
Miss any action from the top college QB Rankings during the 2023 football season? Want to track all the movement with the college football transfer portal? College Football Network has you covered with that and more!
