NIL
NIL is changing college sports; for better or worse?
HUNT VALLEY, Md. (TNND) — It’s been nearly four years since the NCAA enacted a new policy allowing college athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness, and just a few weeks since a federal judge opened the door for college athletic departments to pay athletes directly. Much of the details are still being […]


HUNT VALLEY, Md. (TNND) — It’s been nearly four years since the NCAA enacted a new policy allowing college athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness, and just a few weeks since a federal judge opened the door for college athletic departments to pay athletes directly.
Much of the details are still being worked out in the courts. Key components like roster limits, scholarship limits and payment pools are still up in the air.
As is a governing body to oversee all of these new rules, since most current regulation is a patchwork of state laws, legal settlements and NCAA rules.
But, we are starting to see the impacts of college athletes getting paid – and what it means for the enterprise as a whole.
Depending on who you ask, the historical shift is: long overdue for athletes who’ve spent thousands of hours grinding for their craft; late to the party in terms of global sports; the official death certificate for amateurism and the “student” side of “student-athlete”; or, an inevitable reality that has to run wild before it gets reined in and regulated.
To the league itself, it’s a positive step.
When a judge granted preliminary approval for a framework for schools to pay athletes, NCAA President Charlie Baker said it would “help bring stability and sustainability to college athletics while delivering increased benefits to student athletes for years to come.”
The push for college athletes to get paid spans decades, with legal challenges and legislative efforts dating back to at least the early 2000s. Which is surprising, considering the NCAA has been a multi-million dollar industry for several decades, and a multi-billion dollar industry for about a decade.
That disparity is due to the idea of “amateurism,” a word many experts and analysts use when they cite concerns about completely commercializing college sports. That idea goes back more than a century, to 1800s England, where sports were only for the wealthy, and the working class didn’t want them to be able to pay their way to victory.
“I don’t want to say [amateurism] is going to die, but it will certainly be the commercial aspects that are going to permeate,” said David Hedlund, the chairman of the Division of Sport Management at St. John’s University. “I think we’re going to see and hear less and less about amateurism, and college sports are going to look more like professional sports, or a training ground for professional sports.”
The idea that sports are for enjoyment and the love of the game rather than money is a noble one. And players can love the game and make money off their talents at the same time.
But many experts say amateurism has long been dead; the NCAA was just, for whatever reason, the last organization behind the International Olympic Committee to let it die. It’s part of an effort to keep pace with the rest of the world. Overseas soccer and basketball players are spotted when they’re 12 to 14 years old, and go pro when they turn 18.
“We’re in a global marketplace,” said Matt Winkler, a professor and program director of sports analytics and management at American University. “We sort of have to keep up with the other nations if we want to strive and have those great moments in sports for our Olympic teams and our World Cup teams and so forth.”
Coaches have long been compensated, and universities have long profited off their sports teams.
“The money has always been there. It’s just a lot more front-facing now, I think, than it’s been in the past,” Hedlund said.
Some sports analysts say it was quite front-facing in this year’s NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament.
March Madness was devoid of any significant upsets or Cinderella teams. For the first time in five decades, every team that made it to the Sweet 16 came from a power conference, including all four No. 1 seeds and all but one No. 2 seed.
And, every team that made it to the Final Four was a No. 1 seed.
ESPN analyst Stephen Smith said NIL deals and the now no-limits transfer portal are to blame for why mid-major programs didn’t see much success, and top-tier schools prevailed.
“If there was no NIL, if there was no portal and you have the mid-majors go 0-6 in the second round, please, we ain’t sweating that,” Smith said. “But when you’re able to point to rules that have been implemented that ultimately shows itself to have inflicted upon the game itself, that’s dangerous.
“College basketball as we knew it – which, to me, is all about March Madness – will cease to exist. Because there’s no madness.”
Experts say there is a serious question mark about the current state of how much colleges can pay to entice players, and how many times players can be enticed enough to transfer.
But not all believe it has to be the death of March Madness or competition in college sports. After all, there’s still Division 2 and 3 universities.
Richard Paulsen, a sports economist and professor at the University of Michigan, said it’s hard to gauge the impact of NIL deals and the transfer portal on competition. Because while the top ten or so power schools may be able to offer the most money to the elite players, there’s still a lot of talent out there.
“The top schools have an advantage in getting the A-level talent, but some of the players that might have sat on the bench at a top school previously could be enticed away with NIL money coming from a second tier school,” Paulsen said. “So I think the impact on competitive balance is maybe a little bit less clear.”
Paulsen says, as a professor, he is worried about the impact NIL deals – particularly million-dollar ones – can have on the students themselves, some 18, 19, 20 years old. It raises the question, does a teenager or young adult need this much money?
Shedeur Sanders is 23 years old, and his NIL valuation at the University of Colorado was roughly $6.5 million. Granted, he’s the son of NFL Hall of Famer and head coach for Colorado Deion Sanders.
But, his 2024 stats were top five in completion percentage, passing touchdowns and yards. Several analysts had him as the top prospect in the 2025 NFL draft, but he slid down to the fifth round, shocking much of the sports world.
Various reports place blame on other reasons – maybe he took more sacks than he should have, maybe NFL executives see traits we can’t see, maybe he bombed interviews with the managers, maybe it had to do with his Hall of Famer dad. And he certainly wouldn’t be the first prospect to get picked later than expected and prove all the teams that passed over him wrong.
But, he’s also losing money by going pro. The iced out, custom “Legendary” chain he wore on Draft Day reportedly cost $1 million.
“It is at least worth noting that five years ago, he wouldn’t have had the online presence that he had, and that could have turned off some NFL teams,” Paulsen said. “Without being in the rooms, I don’t know if it did, but that is possible, and it’s not something that would have been possible even five years ago.”
It begs the question, is it even worth going pro for these top-tier college athletes with insane NIL deals?
In the NBA, new data shows it may not be. The league announced last week just 106 players declared early for the 2025 draft. It’s the fewest since 2015. The number typically hovers around 300.
The drop in early entrants could be lingering effects of the extra COVID year.
But, next year, ten schools will pay their rosters somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million, including several million dollars per top player. That’s far more than the players would make if they were a second-round draft pick in the NBA.
Winkler said the combination of competitive rosters and the scope of these NIL deals has more to do with this drop in early declarations.
“These deals are getting so big that unless you’re going to be a first round draft choice, maybe if you’re going to be kind of a lottery pick or a top 10, 15 pick, it would be better for you to exhaust your eligibility on a major team, because you’re going to make more,” he said.
So, it might be financially advantageous for athletes to wait on the pros. Some announcers were even suggesting Sanders should go back to college if the NFL didn’t deem him ready for the show. (NCAA rules prohibit him from doing so anyway; he declared for the draft and signed with an agent).
But what about the fact that these players, who become millionaires, are still students?
Schools are working to provide resources for these athletes so they can get advice on what to do with their wealth, so that they don’t spend it irresponsibly. Which is not to assume all of them would; it goes without saying this money could greatly benefit an athlete who grew up in poverty and change the trajectory for his/her family.
But Paulsen says he worries about the “student” side of “student-athlete” when we start talking about millions upon millions of dollars and students transferring to whichever school offers them the most. Sometimes credits don’t transfer; sometimes players could feel pressure to fulfill their NIL commitments over their studies, when the stakes are that high.
At a young age, these players are under an unprecedented amount of pressure, from their coach, from their family, from their financial adviser, from social media, from broadcast exposure, from stakeholders, from the tens of millions of people who can now legally bet on them.
“Players should be able to leave bad situations, absolutely, and I certainly support players’ autonomy and chasing financial benefit from their athletic talents,” Paulsen said. “But if we’re going to call them student athletes, we should have some emphasis on the student part of that too. Some of these rules that are helping the athlete are hurting the student.”
One of those rules, he says, is the transfer portal. But in addition to harming the students’ academic careers, experts say this also takes a toll on teams and fans of those teams.
Take Nico Iamaleava for example. The star quarterback abruptly parted ways with Tennessee over an alleged compensation dispute with the school’s collective. He demanded an NIL readjustment to $4 million to keep playing for the Vols, and when they said no, he transferred to UCLA, though it’s unclear if they met his demands.
The exit shocked his teammates in Knoxville, with one of his receivers and defensive backs, Boo Carter, telling reporters, “He left his brothers behind.”
But the new pay-to-play system does also beg the question of school loyalty, not just for the players, but the fans too.
Paulsen says roster continuity, players spending all four years playing for one team, has been an endearing feature of sports like women’s college basketball, when you look at the legacies, for example, Caitlin Clark built at the University of Iowa, or Paige Bueckers at the University of Connecticut.
“I do think there’s definitely some extent to which all this player movement can have negative consequences,” he said.
But, some experts doubt fans of teams need to see the same or similar team year to year.
After all, this past NCAA Men’s March Madness Championship between Florida and Houston – the one ESPN’s Smith said featured no madness at all – scored 18.1 million viewers on CBS. That’s up 22% from last year’s championship, and the biggest audience since 2019.
The Final Four games, featuring all No. 1 seeds, ranked as the most-watched games in eight years.
In other words, so far, so good when it comes to college sports fandom.
One thing broadly agreed upon among experts is that competition must remain intact. The Florida-Houston matchup was a nailbiter.
“The biggest thing that would kill sports is if there is no competitive balance,” Hedlund said. “It is known when you have a really great team being a not-so-great team, if the great team probably will win, people don’t want to watch.”
People still appear to be watching. If they stop, one could assume the NCAA would change its course, or it’d be out of all its money too.
Plus, these experts expect regulation soon – possible measures like transfer restrictions, collectively bargained salary caps, conference realignment to avoid concentration, turning athletic departments into LLCs, putting degree completion into bylaws and evening out the number of roster spots, among other rules.
Experts say: be patient, wait for the legal fights to run their course, and wait for the brightest minds in sports – and Congress – to come up with a solution that pleases the players, teams, coaches, schools and fans.
“This is fundamental to the success of sports, so we just need to figure out what rules, what regulations, what governing bodies, how do we facilitate this?” Hedlund said. “We don’t want to ruin sports. That’s what’s at stake here.”
Winkler says it all comes down to the most “hardcore” stakeholders: fans and alumni. If the SEC and Big 10 just ganged up and created their own Premier League and college sports turned into checkbook sports, it could threaten that school pride.
“This year, we definitely saw cracks in the system,” Winkler said. “If the best athletes just go to the top, are [fans] rooting for an inferior product? Are they still going to have that affinity for their school, their team, their degrees, and people that are doing it? This is really going to test that.
“[Schools] have two key pressure points: keep getting a lot of money from TV so you can fund your athletic department, and keep alumni, fans and donors still feeling as engagedThere’s a lot to be worked out in the next several months and probably the next year to really get a boiler plate idea of what the rules and regulations need to be.”
NIL
What is the end date for the crazy NIL deals?
Gyandle said… (original post) You don’t think legislation is going to stop teams from finding a way to use rich boosters to slide players money? They did it before NIL. They did… show more That is kind of a ridiculous line of thinking. Sure, there will be some payments outside the system, but for perspective, […]

Gyandle said… (original post) You don’t think legislation is going to stop teams from finding a way to use rich boosters to slide players money? They did it before NIL. They did…
That is kind of a ridiculous line of thinking. Sure, there will be some payments outside the system, but for perspective, during the bagman era, major deals were less than 10% of what they became when it was legalized. Tiny in comparison. It’ll go back that way. The ultra rich just can’t launder that amount of money under the table, nor do most of the ultra rich have the stomach for that type of thing. So it will be peanuts compared to what it was…we know, because we saw what it was when it was under the table before. Tiny in comparison. Less than revenue share that is coming by a long shot.
NIL
Ross Dellenger reveals Kentucky basketball led charge to scuttle SEC capping NIL spending by sport
On Saturday, Judge Claudia Wilken approved the House v. NCAA settlement, which officially ushered in the era of revenue sharing. Specifically, college will be allowed to directly pay their respective athletes $20.5 million per year. It’s up to each college’s discretion on how they split up the money to each athletic program. However, some conferences […]

On Saturday, Judge Claudia Wilken approved the House v. NCAA settlement, which officially ushered in the era of revenue sharing. Specifically, college will be allowed to directly pay their respective athletes $20.5 million per year.
It’s up to each college’s discretion on how they split up the money to each athletic program. However, some conferences have reportedly considered creating uniform percentages of the revenue for each program to receive from their respective school.
Per Yahoo! Sports’ Ross Dellenger, the SEC was one of the conferences examining this option. During an appearance on The Matt Jones Show, Dellenger revealed that Kentucky basketball, and several other programs, spoke out against the idea when it was proposed.
“The SEC had actually gone down the road on doing that,” Dellenger said. “I know football was at least $13.5 million. I can’t remember any of the other figures. Basketball may have been like $2.8 million, and the SEC had set some of those standards.
“But, Kentucky did not — and some others too — but Kentucky basketball, specifically, was a pretty big voice in the room to make sure that those standards weren’t set as a policy, because Kentucky obviously wants to spend more.”
While football still brings in the most revenue for Kentucky, the school’s basketball program reels in far more money than most competing SEC programs. Thus, it’s natural for members of the program to believe they deserve more of the $20.5 million available.
After all, programs like Kentucky basketball have to worry about competing against other blue-chip programs outside of the SEC such as Duke or Kansas that would likely not be facing the same cap. Kentucky basketball reportedly wasn’t the only program that disapproved of pre-arranged revenue percentages.
“It wasn’t just Kentucky that wanted to spend more in basketball,” Dellenger said. “Think about South Carolina women’s basketball, Arkansas baseball, LSU baseball… There were plenty of programs that wanted to spend more than the standards, sort of the maximum standards, that the SEC was talking about doing. So they kind of bailed on it for now.”
Of course, the SEC could circle back around on the idea. After all, college athletics is only in the earliest stages of this new era. New authorities such as the College Sports Commission could have a loud voice in discussions, such as the one Dellenger mentioned, moving forward.
To pile on, new issues will arise as schools and athletes bring forward further lawsuits that contest Wilken’s ruling. Additionally, schools are currently still unfamiliar with the new clearinghouse process that will approve of NIL deals that emerge from outside the school’s direct payments.
NIL
West Virginia’s Season Ends With Loss at LSU in NCAA Super Regional
BATON ROUGE, La. – The West Virginia University baseball team saw its season come to an end on Sunday as the Mountaineers fell to No. 6 LSU, 12-5, in the NCAA Super Regionals at Alex Box Stadium. WVU finishes the season with a 44-16 overall record. Juniors Sam White and Ben […]

BATON ROUGE, La. – The West Virginia University baseball team saw its season come to an end on Sunday as the Mountaineers fell to No. 6 LSU, 12-5, in the NCAA Super Regionals at Alex Box Stadium. WVU finishes the season with a 44-16 overall record.
Juniors Sam White and Ben Lumsden each hit home runs for the Mountaineers and drove in two. Senior Jace Rinehart added his ninth home run of the season as well.
On the mound, graduate Jack Kartsonas suffered the loss with six runs allowed in 2.0 innings. Sophomore Chase Meyer had four strikeouts in 4.0 innings while junior Ben McDougal tossed 2.1 hitless innings.
The Tigers scored a run in the first to take an early lead before adding five in the second to go up 6-0 after two innings.
In the fourth, White got the Mountaineers on the board with a solo home run before Lumsden added a two-run shot a couple of batters later. White got West Virginia within two in the fifth with an RBI single.
WVU’s defense failed them in the seventh with three errors as LSU scored six runs, five of which were unearned.
In the eighth, Rinehart hit a solo home run, but that was the end of the scoring for West Virginia.
LSU advances to the College World Series which begins Friday, June 13 in Omaha, Nebraska.
For more information on the Mountaineers, follow @WVUBaseball on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
NIL
Pete Thamel considers potential Sherrone Moore penalty in NCAA's Connor Stalions case
The Michigan Wolverines and Connor Stalions case is once again heating up as Stalions showed up at an NCAA Infractions hearing. That’s led to further concerns about what the future may hold as it relates to a penalty against head coach Sherrone Moore. Pete Thamel dove in depth into the situation on the College GameDay […]


The Michigan Wolverines and Connor Stalions case is once again heating up as Stalions showed up at an NCAA Infractions hearing. That’s led to further concerns about what the future may hold as it relates to a penalty against head coach Sherrone Moore.
Pete Thamel dove in depth into the situation on the College GameDay Podcast. There, he explained that Michigan and the NCAA are in what could be considered a kind of negotiation over Moore, exemplified by the two-game suspension the school self-imposed on Moore.
“We’ll start with Moore,” Pete Thamel said. “The two games self-imposed. When you’re negotiating, you don’t do too much. Clearly, that’s a signal from the other side that the NCAA/committee seems like they think he should be suspended for more, and it’s a negotiation. They’re going to meet in the middle.”
Under Moore’s suspension, he would miss Week 3 and Week 4 of the 2025 season. That would extend beyond the games and into practice, seemingly making the suspension harsher as Michigan looks to negotiate and show they’re serious about the punishment.
“So, the most important thing that I don’t think has been talked about a lot with Moore’s potential suspension is he would also have to miss practice those two weeks. I’ve talked to a couple of coaches about this… if you said, ‘Hey, you can coach practice all week and not coach the game or coach the game and not practice all week,’ they would clearly coach practice all week because that’s when you’re putting everything in. The game is just the calling of the plays. It’s still important to coach the game, but given the choice between the two,” Thamel said.
“Back in the day, like 10, 12 years ago I remember Jim Boeheim got suspended at some juncture at Syracuse and he had to miss practice. He was just like gone for a while and there’s a difference because you’re not developing your team in that. That changed. [Jim] Harbaugh for those three games he was suspended to start the year — the NCAA suspension, not the Big Ten one — he was around until like midnight the night before. Something like that. So, he basically did all the things and didn’t do that.”
Sherrone Moore was Michigan’s offensive coordinator during the Connor Stalions scandal. At the time, it was considered a second potential offense, making him a repeat offender. Moore would be accused of deleting text messages to conceal them from the NCAA relating to the scandal, in particular.
“So, it’s reasonable to ascertain that Michigan is going in low with the two. Now, whether he actually ends up missing those two,” Thamel said. “Whether that’s accepted, whether they do more, there are a lot of variables here. That is more like a negotiation point with the third and fourth game this year.”
Is the Connor Stalions case the last its kind?
The NCAA is still running the investigation into Connor Stalions and Sherrone Moore. However, as Pete Thamel explained, that could make it the last of its kind.
“The interesting thing from the macro here is this case may be remembered as the last explosive NCAA case that we ever see. Enforcement as we know it is going to be shifted to the new organization” Thamel said. “And the new CEO, and a lot of that stuff is being socialized…for how it’s all gonna go. NIL Go, Deloitte. I was told the other day that the presentations that they’re doing at these conference meetings, for example, that the deadline for a case to be decided for a student-athlete is 45 days. I mean, you couldn’t even clear your throat for 45 days in this current slog.”
The House Settlement is changing enforcement in college sports. The power conferences are establishing a new enforcement arm that’s going to be called the College Sports Commission. Major League Baseball executive Bryan Seeley has been named CEO to lead it, changing how investigations will be run moving forward.
“And there’s a lot of ifs. I’m not going to downplay that. Now, the NCAA will still have an enforcement staff. They’ll deal with academic stuff and a lot of things under the purview. But, in terms of… academic stuff, and there will still be academic fraud and that type of thing. That’s not gonna go away… But I think this is one of the smartest things the NCAA has ever done is getting enforcement out of its building,” Thamel said.
“Because it was the least effective, least popular, and most toxic part of that organization. A lot of the NCAA’s bad reputation over the years, especially under Mark Emmert as it toiled and was kind of rudderless and directionless and impotent, the face of the NCAA’s unpopularity was often this process and how it worked. It was fairness to kids. It was this, it was that. So, the tenor that I’ve gotten is ‘good luck college sports. Good luck new CEO. You can take the bullets because this all sounds good until the first big punishment comes. Like, we know the ripple. We know what it feels like. We know how it’s gonna go.’ So, there is a lot earnest people trying hard, but there’s also a lot of wait and see from people who have lived a lot of these cases.”
Regardless, the Michigan case is still up in the air and being investigated by the NCAA. Only time will tell if the NCAA accepts the self-imposed suspension for Sherrone Moore or demands a steeper punishment.
NIL
Without Action, NIL Risks Entrenching Inequities (opinion)
When the National Collegiate Athletic Association authorized students to monetize their name, image and likeness (NIL) rights in 2021, the decision was framed as a transformative disruption of amateurism, a chance to democratize financial opportunities across all college athletes, regardless of gender, sport or institutional affiliation. Advocates envisioned a marketplace where visibility, entrepreneurship and merit […]

When the National Collegiate Athletic Association authorized students to monetize their name, image and likeness (NIL) rights in 2021, the decision was framed as a transformative disruption of amateurism, a chance to democratize financial opportunities across all college athletes, regardless of gender, sport or institutional affiliation. Advocates envisioned a marketplace where visibility, entrepreneurship and merit could eclipse systemic bias.
Four years later, the results are starkly disproportionate. Despite NIL’s promise of inclusion, early outcomes reveal a new iteration of entrenched hierarchies. Football and men’s basketball athletes capture the overwhelming majority of NIL earnings, while women athletes and athletes on nonrevenue teams fight for a marginal share of the market. Without deliberate structural reform, NIL threatens to entrench long-standing inequities under a modern guise.
NIL’s Uneven Impact
Industry data shows that nearly 80 percent of NIL dollars flow to male athletes, particularly in football and men’s basketball. Female athletes, even those with notable athletic success or strong social media presences, remain vastly underrepresented in the NIL economy.
Structural factors reinforce this disparity. Booster-backed NIL collectives, which pool financial resources to support athletes, heavily favor men’s sports. Corporate sponsorships and media deals mirror historical inequities, channeling investment into male-dominated programs while relegating women’s teams to the periphery. Visibility begets value, and in a marketplace where women’s sports still struggle for equitable media exposure, the playing field remains far from level.
NIL was not designed to correct these underlying market forces, but it now magnifies them. Without intervention, it risks solidifying a two-tiered economy in college athletics.
Structural Challenges on the Horizon
Experts in college athletics governance warn that emerging legal frameworks will further complicate the NIL landscape. The House v. NCAA settlement is slated for implementation on July 1. It will allow universities to directly share revenue with student athletes, capped at $20.5 million annually per institution.
Under this model, institutions must balance new forms of direct compensation with Title IX obligations and financial sustainability. Yet as legal scholars note, mechanisms for ensuring gender equity in relation to institutional NIL payments remain vague. Enforcement is expected to focus on egregious violations, not on proactively monitoring systemic disparities.
It is worth noting that these reforms are built around the infrastructure of the Power Four conferences, former Power Five members and high-revenue sports programs, leaving smaller institutions to bear the consequences. A key critique raised during policy discussions is that the NCAA is funding legal defenses and settlements (such as House v. NCAA) largely stemming from Power Five football, despite receiving no revenue from the College Football Playoff, which is independently operated by the conferences. The NCAA’s primary income source is March Madness, yet it shoulders the regulatory and legal burdens tied to football governance.
The settlement also introduces roster limits as a cost-control and Title IX compliance strategy. While reducing football roster sizes may create financial savings, roster limits risk unintended consequences: shrinking athletic opportunities and destabilizing programs that have historically expanded access for women. Institutions must tread carefully to avoid worsening inequities under the banner of financial reform. Fewer athletes also mean fewer enrolled students paying tuition and contributing to campus life, subtler but significant consequences for institutional sustainability.
Additionally, with federal guidance on NIL payments and Title IX in flux since the change in presidential administrations in January, it remains unclear how Title IX should apply to direct athlete compensation and NIL structures. This regulatory uncertainty is unfolding alongside a broader retrenchment in higher education equity efforts. Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives have faced mounting political and legal challenges, with many institutions scaling back public-facing commitments to equity under state pressure or due to administrative caution.
For instance, states like Florida, Oklahoma and Texas have enacted laws and policies that dismantle DEI offices and restrict related programming at public universities. These states collectively host more than a dozen Power Four institutions, including prominent programs in the SEC and Big 12 conferences. The elimination of DEI infrastructure in these states not only limits institutional capacity to address equity in NIL implementation but also exacerbates compliance challenges under Title IX. In this climate, even well-intentioned NIL reforms risk deprioritizing gender equity, not only at institutions facing state legislative pressures, but across the broader higher education landscape, where structural limitations and regulatory ambiguity increasingly constrain equity-focused work.
Without a coherent federal framework, institutions are left to interpret compliance on their own, often inconsistently and without the tools to embed gender equity into NIL design. As regulatory momentum builds, there is a real risk that top-down reforms will entrench existing hierarchies rather than dismantle them. Legal pressure is mounting as well: Cases against the NCAA are increasingly addressing more nuanced areas of NIL, including media rights, retroactive compensation and the classification of athletes as employees. These developments signal that without clear, equity-centered policy, institutions may soon find themselves not only out of compliance, but in court.
Building Equity by Design
Higher education must recognize that NIL is not just a financial or athletic issue; it is a fundamental equity issue. Institutions cannot afford to replicate old hierarchies under a new system.
Concrete steps forward include:
- Building equitable promotional strategies: Ensure comparable visibility across men’s and women’s sports by investing in joint marketing campaigns, content creation resources and equitable social media promotion, not just traditional media coverage.
- Implementing comprehensive NIL education programs: Offer workshops that directly address gender-based disparities in financial literacy, contract negotiation, branding strategies and legal rights, for both student athletes and coaching staffs.
- Strengthening institutional NIL infrastructure: Equip athletic departments with trained NIL administrators, general managers and compliance officers to support equitable deal facilitation and roster management across all sports, not just revenue teams.
- Structuring donor engagement more inclusively: Actively encourage booster support for women’s and Olympic sports by creating collective fundraising goals, incentive matches and branding opportunities that spotlight underrepresented teams.
- Embedding Title IX compliance at every stage: Require that institutional NIL deals undergo equity review for gender representation before approval and align NIL policies with broader Title IX audits to ensure systemic, not incidental, compliance.
- Expanding shared governance around NIL oversight: Engage faculty senates, equity officers and trustees in the design and review of NIL policies to ensure they align with broader institutional commitments to Title IX and educational access.
NIL offers unprecedented opportunities for student-athletes, but opportunity alone does not guarantee equity. Without intentional correction, the marketplace will reflect and reinforce historical biases. Colleges and universities must commit not merely to participating in the NIL era, but to shaping it in a way that honors the values of inclusion, fairness and educational purpose.
NIL
Softball America Top 25 Rankings: Final 2025
The 2025 college softball season has concluded after the Texas Longhorns claimed their first national title. Texas, which was the No. 1 in our poll eight of 14 times this season, returns to that top spot after the 2025 Women’s College World Series. All eight Women’s College World Series teams, along with Clemson and Florida […]

The 2025 college softball season has concluded after the Texas Longhorns claimed their first national title. Texas, which was the No. 1 in our poll eight of 14 times this season, returns to that top spot after the 2025 Women’s College World Series. All eight Women’s College World Series teams, along with Clemson and Florida State, round out the Top 10.
Teagan Kavan’s historic WCWS performance leads Texas to first national championship
Three teams that were unranked ahead of conference tournament week. Liberty and Georgia return to the rankings after their Super Regional appearances. North Florida makes its first-ever appearance in the Softball America poll after reaching the Columbia Regional Final.
Read more: Top 100 College Softball Players of the 2025 season
Ranking | Team | Record | Last Week Ranking |
1 | Texas | 56-12 | 6 |
2 | Texas Tech | 54-14 | 9 |
3 | Oklahoma | 52-9 | 4 |
4 | Tennessee | 47-17 | 5 |
5 | UCLA | 55-13 | 11 |
6 | Oregon | 54-10 | 8 |
7 | Ole Miss | 42-21 | 21 |
8 | Florida | 48-17 | 7 |
9 | Clemson | 48-14 | 10 |
10 | Florida State | 49-12 | 3 |
11 | Arkansas | 44-14 | 1 |
12 | Alabama | 40-23 | 15 |
13 | Nebraska | 43-15 | 19 |
14 | South Carolina | 44-17 | 12 |
15 | Liberty | 50-15 | NR |
16 | Georgia | 35-23 | NR |
17 | Texas A&M | 48-11 | 2 |
18 | Arizona | 48-13 | 14 |
19 | Stanford | 42-13 | 16 |
20 | Virginia Tech | 43-13 | 17 |
21 | LSU | 42-16 | 13 |
22 | Mississippi State | 39-19 | 17 |
23 | Ohio State | 45-14-1 | 18 |
24 | Duke | 41-18 | 22 |
25 | North Florida | 47-15 | NR |
Also received votes: Southeastern Louisiana
For transfer portal news, stay up to date with the Softball America transfer wire and the Dugout, our discussion board for members.
-
College Sports3 weeks ago
Portal Update – Basketball and Gymnastics Take Hits
-
Professional Sports3 weeks ago
Jon Jones answers UFC retirement speculation as fans accuse champion of 'holding the belt …
-
Youtube3 weeks ago
Xavier Legette taught Marty Smith his signature celly
-
Motorsports3 weeks ago
Why IHOP Rode With Dale Earnhardt Jr. In Amazon NASCAR Debut
-
NIL2 weeks ago
2025 NCAA Softball Tournament Bracket: Women’s College World Series bracket, schedule set
-
College Sports3 weeks ago
NCDC Commitment Profiles: Cyclones’ Martins Moving On to Saint Anselm College • USPHL
-
High School Sports3 weeks ago
Today in the MHSAA
-
Health4 days ago
Oregon track star wages legal battle against trans athlete policy after medal ceremony protest
-
Professional Sports4 days ago
'I asked Anderson privately'… UFC legend retells secret sparring session between Jon Jones …
-
College Sports1 week ago
IU basketball recruiting