On June 21, 2021, the SCOTUS ruled unanimously that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) violated antitrust laws by restricting education-related benefits. The landmark decision for the financial freedom of athletes has forever changed the college sports landscape.
Several different student-athletes challenged the NCAA, and a majority of their conferences argued the limitations on compensation were unjust. The case, NCAA v. Alston, made its way through the court system until it reached the Supreme Court.
The court agreed with the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Their ruling stated that the NCAA is not excused from the Sherman Act, and restricting student-athletes’ pay breaks the antitrust laws outlined in the act.
This decision did not instantly abolish previous relegations or specifically outline payment rules; instead, it set precedent for future litigation and caused the NCAA to rethink its rules. On June 30, 2021, the NCAA removed their long-lived NIL rules and created an interim policy.
16 months later, this decision has changed multiple aspects of college sports. At the base of it, Name-Image-Likeness (NIL) is one of the biggest sources of contention between colleges and student-athletes. These new rules allow any student-athlete to profit off their own name, image and popularity. Following this ruling, student-athletes are now allowed to make deals with companies, be featured in commercials and receive compensation for work they had previously not been paid for.
Now, players at the top of the draft projections, and those just enjoying the ride, are making life-changing money. Bryce Young, the University of Alabama’s starting quarterback and projected top-5 pick in this year’s NFL draft, is estimated to be worth $3.2 million, according to Pro Football Network. This is largely due to the $800,000 made from sponsorships with large companies, such as CashApp and Onyx Authenticated.
Most of the NIL money is flowing through football, as almost half of the estimated $1.14 billion in NIL money will land with football players. Other sports, such as basketball and gymnastics, have also generated a considerable amount of NIL money. Olivia Dunne, an Louisiana State University gymnast, is estimated to have made $2.3 million in NIL endorsements as of October this year. This has come largely from her sponsorship with Vuori, an activewear company. Dunne has also partnered with EA Sports, American Eagle and GrubHub.
“I think it’s great for female student-athletes in gymnastics, like myself, because there is really no professional league after college, so we can capitalize on our opportunities right now… It’s like I’m part of history, all of us student-athletes are,” Dunne said to the New York Post.
Recently, businesses have created controversy by luring recruits to some colleges with promises of NIL contracts. A major example occurred at Miami University, which resulted in the NCAA reviewing its interim policy.
For example, in June, the NCAA had a two-day inquiry into Miami University, focused mainly on the actions of University of Miami booster and millionaire John Ruiz. Since the new NIL rules were introduced, Ruiz has been at the forefront of NIL deals and sponsorships. Ruiz has pledged to spend $10 million on student-athletes in order to promote his own businesses.
So far, his company LifeWallet has amounted to $5 million in NIL deals and his other major company, Cigarette Racing, accounts for $400,000. This is largely due to the massive contract with now-Miami guard Nijel Pack. Transferring in from Kansas State, Pack signed a deal worth $800,000.
This has raised questions about the fairness of NIL and whether boosters and/or wealthy alumni with close relations to the school are drawing in recruits through NIL money. Along with the Pack case, transfer twin standout guards Haley and Hanna Cavidner from Fresno State to Miami are affected. Shortly after transferring, they also signed deals with Ruiz.
“A lot of people tie in NIL with athletic ability, but it’s not connected at all. You can have a really, really good athlete that may very well not be very valuable as a NIL contract. Maybe they don’t tweet or have Instagram. They may be an introvert. They may not have interest, and that’s okay. They still have a place in the ecosystem in sports, but it may not necessarily be on the NIL side,” Ruiz said to the Washington Post.
As NIL continues to expand across college sports, NCAA has already started to review their new policies, as have multiple states. Over the summer, the NCAA reviewed the entirety of their interim policy and issued Guidance Regarding Third Party Involvement due to the issues they noticed. Within the new guidance, they have reiterated that boosters cannot have conversations with potential student-athletes for recruiting purposes and that NIL arrangements may not be dependent on enrollment at a particular school.”We are concerned that some activity in the name, image and likeness space may not only be violating NCAA recruiting rules, particularly those prohibiting booster involvement, but also may be impacting the student-athlete experience negatively in some ways…We want to preserve the positive aspects of the new policy, while reviewing whether anything can be done to mitigate the negative ones,” NCAA Division 1 Board of Director’s chair Jere Morehead said in a statement from the NCAA.
Written by Ari Fine of Richard Montgomery High School
Photo courtesy of Noah Stephenson of Richard Montgomery High School