CHICAGO (July 10, 2025) – For the 15th consecutive month, UConn’s Paige Bueckers was the top-earning collegiate female athlete on the NIL Store.

Joining Bueckers as June 2025 leaders were Duke’s Cooper Flagg as the top-earning male athlete, and the University of Connecticut as the top-selling school. The NIL Store supports more than 25,000 athletes and 115 institutions nationwide.

June marked the end of Bueckers’ illustrious NIL Store run as a collegiate representative with the 2024-25 academic calendar officially coming to a close.

Bueckers’ gear will remain available for sale, however, thanks to the NIL Store’s partnership with the WNBPA which provides WNBA athletes a platform to earn proceeds on their collegiate gear. 

Bueckers’ collegiate legacy gear is available alongside other WNBA legends including Kelsey Plum, Breanna Stewart, Brittney Griner, Angel Reese, Alyssa Thomas and more.

June ’25 Top-Selling Schools

1. UConn

2. Arkansas

3. UCLA

4. Duke

5. Louisville

6. Tennessee

7. Syracuse

8. LSU

9. Texas Tech

10. Florida

June ’25 Top-Earning Male Athletes

1. Cooper Flagg – Duke Men’s Basketball

2. Gage Wood – Arkansas Baseball

3. Roch Cholowsky – UCLA Baseball

4. Wehiwa Aloy – Arkansas Baseball

5. Kade Anderson – LSU Baseball

6. Kiyan Anthony – Syracuse Men’s Basketball

7. Liam Doyle – Tennessee Baseball

8. Blake Balsz – UCLA Baseball

9. Steve Angeli – Syracuse Football

10. Roman Martin – UCLA Baseball

June ’25 Top-Earning Female Athletes

1. Paige Bueckers – UConn Women’s Basketball

2. Azzi Fudd – UConn Women’s Basketball

3. Karlyn Pickens – Tennessee Softball

4. NiJaree Canady – Texas Tech Softball

5. Sarah Strong – UConn Women’s Basketball

6. Bri Ellis – Arkansas Softball

7. KK Arnold – UConn Women’s Basketball

8. Jordan Woolery – UCLA Softball

9. Hailey Toney – Texas Tech Softball

10. Megan Grant – UCLA Softball

ABOUT CAMPUS INK AND THE NIL STORE

Backed by Mark Cuban, Campus Ink expanded into the Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) space in 2021 and launched the NIL Store which serves as a merchandising solution for student-athletes and schools across the country. The NIL Store operates with the firm belief that every student-athlete has an opportunity to capitalize on their NIL and should earn industry-leading payouts. Campus Ink was founded in 1947 on the campus of the University of Illinois and was reimagined in 2015 with an office in downtown Chicago and a production facility in Urbana, Ill., where the company handles all of its own production and fulfillment.

As of July 1, college athletes are being directly paid by the universities for which they play, but that doesn’t mean the schools are divulging the payments on the record. 

Through reporting, we know the numbers on the high end are going up. Duke quarterback Darien Mensah will earn $4 million per year for a two-year deal at Duke. Five-star offensive line prospect Felix Ojo has a three-year deal averaging $775,000 a year with a verbal understanding that TTU will renegotiate up to $5 million. Basketball star AJ Dybantsa had an approximate asking price of $5 million before signing with BYU. 

But schools do not publicly disclose amounts of revenue-sharing deals voluntarily, and whether they will ever be compelled to do so is unclear. In that way, the post-House v. NCAA settlement world is just like what came before in the era when athletes were being compensated by third-party NIL collectives. 

Why are schools silent on revenue-sharing deals?

CBS Sports filed more than a dozen freedom of information requests for the revenue-sharing contracts of high-profile college football players across the country. As of publication time, six schools have provided responses — all of which were denials. Context for the denials runs the gamut. 

Alabama responded to a request for QB Ty Simpson and WR Ryan Williams’ contracts by simply saying, “there are no public documents responsive to your open records request[.]” Florida declined to disclose QB DJ Lagway’s contract, stating that athletic records are exempt from Florida’s public records laws. In the past, however, Florida has shared coaching contracts with reporters. 

Other schools have different justifications. Clemson denied a request made by The Post and Courier, stating that the agreements are “proprietary,” and that releasing them would put the Tigers at a competitive disadvantage. Colorado denied a request by CBS Sports for the contracts of QBs Julian Lewis and Kaden Salter, citing a state law that allows the university to “deny inspection of any name, image, or likeness contract containing personally identifiable information for any of our student athletes.” The law was signed in March by governor Jared Polis, and in his signing statement, he expressed reservations about a lack of transparency.

“While I support the bill and its goals, there are issues regarding transparency that were not addressed during the legislative process that I would like to see addressed in the future,” Polis wrote. “In particular, I have concerns about the bill’s new Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) exception regarding student-athlete contracts. While the bill’s exception is narrowly tailored, it follows an unfortunate trend of legislative proposals that ultimately impede access to official records that are arguably within the public’s interest to view. These exceptions move transparency in the wrong direction and any other proposals that further prevent or delay public access to information will be carefully reviewed.” 

The bill’s sponsor, state senator Judy Amabile (who represents Boulder), told The Denver Post that the fact that athletes are not employees was the main factor in keeping the deals private. 

“They’re not being paid with public money,” Amabile said. “They’re students, and students have protections, and we wanted to preserve that.” 

What is NIL Go? Explaining the College Sports Commission’s initiative to monitor name, image and likeness

Will Backus

Schools have used FERPA to shield records since NIL payments were allowed in 2021. Utah has an NIL bill with similar shielding from the public, passed in early 2024, and governor Spencer Cox at the time said: “We’re at a big competitive disadvantage if other states aren’t required to release the terms of those contracts,” …  “And as much as I’d like to get rid of all this, I do support the bill. I think it’s the right thing to do, put us on a level playing field and, especially because it involves young people and minors, I think it’s OK.”

The law passed after The Deseret News requested athlete NIL agreements in July 2023 via records request. The five state schools denied the request, stating that the contracts are “education records” and saying they are protected by the federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). But, in October 2023, a Utah state records committee unanimously ruled that NIL agreements are not education records and should be disclosed due to the public nature of the athletes. The schools appealed to state court, and while the decision was still pending, the state passed the law shielding all deals from the public and a judge. A district court judge found that the law was retroactive and dismissed The Deseret News’ case. 

UCLA, South Carolina and Florida State each cited FERPA in their denials of CBS Sports’ requests for athlete revenue-sharing agreements.  

“[I]ndividual students’ NIL licensing contracts are confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to [FERPA] which defines an “educational record” as a record which is (1) “directly related to a student” and (2) is “maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution,” Florida State stated in its response. “Individual students’ NIL licensing agreements fall squarely within the definition of an “educational record” as defined by FERPA, and FSU therefore cannot release revenue sharing contracts for any student to the public without violating FERPA.” 

But, is the school’s interpretation of FERPA too broad? It’s a complicated question that may lead to more legal challenges in the future, according to Robert Romano, a sports law professor at St. John’s University. 

“That’d be up to a judge to decide whether or not it is or it isn’t. As of right now, they’re using it and are using it successfully,” Romano said. “I think what they’re scared of is if they release this information and the judge or the Department of Education finds out they did it in violation of the FERPA rules and regulations, they can risk federal funding. And I think that’s the issue right now. All the schools are scrambling. With everything that’s happening in this new administration, with regards to federal funding, they want to make sure that they’re not doing anything that steps over the line or could expose them to the possibility of losing any additional funding that the federal government provides, and if they release some information that could be interpreted as in violation of FERPA, well, they’re exposing themselves.”

Romano said that it would be “perfectly fine” for a school to send a revenue-sharing agreement without any identifying information, even an athlete’s name, but they choose not to do that. An issue with any legal challenge for an athlete’s records is the time it would take to fulfill. College athletics is transient, and by the time a case and its appeals work its way through a court system, a football player might be in the transfer portal or in the NFL. 

So, for now, as payments to athletes increase, so will the secrecy around what they’re being paid. 

Greg1716: What 1 or 2 rules changes would Jason Caldwell like to see in college football? How involved – if any – is the coaching staff with data/analytics with regards to game planning, game management, roster management etc. And given the NFL is moving rapidly into incorporating and using AI now to develop analytic models would Auburn experiment with any AI?

I really haven’t thought much about it in terms of actual football being played. Mine would mostly be on the payment side of things and trying to fix that. I think they need to move to employer/employee status and having contracts if we’re going to continue paying athletes like this. Hopefully this new system will actually hold up because that would help. Auburn uses analytics in every sport. Not sure exactly how it works with football other than tendencies, scouting, etc.

FILE — Camp Randall Stadium is seen during an NCAA college football game between Wisconsin and Miami of Ohio, Sept. 12, 2015, in Madison, Wis. (AP Photo/Aaron Gash, File)
AP

The new agency in charge of regulating name, image, likeness deals in college sports sent a letter to schools Thursday saying it had rejected deals between players and donor-backed collectives formed over the past several years to funnel money to athletes or their schools.

Those arrangements hold no “valid business purpose,” the memo said, and don’t adhere to rules that call for outside NIL deals to be between players and companies that provide goods or services to the general public for profit.

The letter to Division I athletic directors could be the next step in shuttering today’s version of the collective, groups that are closely affiliated with schools and that, in the early days of NIL after July 2021, proved the most efficient way for schools to indirectly cut deals with players.

Since then, the landscape has changed yet again with the $2.8 billion House settlement that allows schools to pay the players directly as of July 1.

Already, collectives affiliated with Colorado, Alabama, Notre Dame, Georgia and others have announced they’re shutting down. Georgia, Ohio State and Illinois are among those that have announced plans with Learfield, a media and technology company with decades of licensing and other experience across college athletics, to help arrange NIL deals.

Outside deals between athlete and sponsor are still permitted, but any worth $600 or more have to be vetted by a clearinghouse called NIL Go that was established by the new College Sports Commission and is being run by the auditing group Deloitte.

In its letter to the ADs, the CSC said more than 1,500 deals have been cleared since NIL Go launched on June 11, “ranging in value from three figures to seven figures.” More than 12,000 athletes and 1,100 institutional users have registered to use the system.

But the bulk of the letter explained that many deals could not be cleared because they did not conform to an NCAA rule that sets a “valid business purpose” standard for deals to be approved.

The letter explained that if a collective reaches a deal with an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, the standard is not met because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit.

The same would apply to a deal an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because the purpose of “selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose” according to the NCAA rule.

Sports attorney Darren Heitner, who deals in NIL, said the guidance “could disproportionately burden collectives that are already committed to spending money on players for multiple years to come.”

“If a pattern of rejections results from collective deals submitted to Deloitte, it may invite legal scrutiny under antitrust principles,” he said.

On a separate track, some college sports leaders, including the NCAA, are seeking a limited form of antitrust protection from Congress.

The letter said a NIL deal could be approved if, for instance, the businesses paying the players had a broader purpose than simply acting as a collective. The letter uses a golf course or apparel company as examples.

“In other words, NIL collectives may act as marketing agencies that match student-athletes with businesses that have a valid business purpose and seek to use the student’s NIL to promote their businesses,” the letter said.

The new agency in charge of regulating name, image, likeness deals in college sports sent a letter to schools Thursday saying it had rejected deals between players and donor-backed collectives formed over the past several years to funnel money to athletes or their schools.

Those arrangements hold no “valid business purpose,” the memo said, and don’t adhere to rules that call for outside NIL deals to be between players and companies that provide goods or services to the general public for profit.

Advertisement

The letter to Division I athletic directors could be the next step in shuttering today’s version of the collective, groups that are closely affiliated with schools and that, in the early days of NIL after July 2021, proved the most efficient way for schools to indirectly cut deals with players.

Since then, the landscape has changed yet again with the $2.8 billion House settlement that allows schools to pay the players directly as of July 1.

Already, collectives affiliated with Colorado, Alabama, Notre Dame, Georgia and others have announced they’re shutting down. Georgia, Ohio State and Illinois are among those that have announced plans with Learfield, a media and technology company with decades of licensing and other experience across college athletics, to help arrange NIL deals.

Outside deals between athlete and sponsor are still permitted, but any worth $600 or more have to be vetted by a clearinghouse called NIL Go that was established by the new College Sports Commission and is being run by the auditing group Deloitte.

Advertisement

In its letter to the ADs, the CSC said more than 1,500 deals have been cleared since NIL Go launched on June 11, “ranging in value from three figures to seven figures.” More than 12,000 athletes and 1,100 institutional users have registered to use the system.

But the bulk of the letter explained that many deals could not be cleared because they did not conform to an NCAA rule that sets a “valid business purpose” standard for deals to be approved.

The letter explained that if a collective reaches a deal with an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, the standard is not met because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit.

The same would apply to a deal an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because the purpose of “selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose” according to the NCAA rule.

Advertisement

Sports attorney Darren Heitner, who deals in NIL, said the guidance “could disproportionately burden collectives that are already committed to spending money on players for multiple years to come.”

“If a pattern of rejections results from collective deals submitted to Deloitte, it may invite legal scrutiny under antitrust principles,” he said.

On a separate track, some college sports leaders, including the NCAA, are seeking a limited form of antitrust protection from Congress.

The letter said a NIL deal could be approved if, for instance, the businesses paying the players had a broader purpose than simply acting as a collective. The letter uses a golf course or apparel company as examples.

Advertisement

“In other words, NIL collectives may act as marketing agencies that match student-athletes with businesses that have a valid business purpose and seek to use the student’s NIL to promote their businesses,” the letter said.

___

AP college sports: https://apnews.com/hub/college-sports