Connect with us

NIL

NCAA gets it Right

CLEMSON — The NCAA got something right. On Wednesday, the NCAA Division I Committee for Legislative Relief approved a one-time blanket waiver that allows designated student-athletes to enter the NCAA Transfer Portal outside of the standard transfer windows. The waiver applies to individuals identified as Designated Student-Athletes (DNA) under the House settlement and enables them to declare […]

Published

on

NCAA gets it Right

CLEMSON — The NCAA got something right.

On Wednesday, the NCAA Division I Committee for Legislative Relief approved a one-time blanket waiver that allows designated student-athletes to enter the NCAA Transfer Portal outside of the standard transfer windows.

The waiver applies to individuals identified as Designated Student-Athletes (DNA) under the House settlement and enables them to declare their intent to transfer between July 7-Aug. 5. The waiver creates a unique transfer portal window for DNA, distinct from the regular transfer periods.

An athlete is eligible to be placed on a DSA list if they were eligible for practice and/or competition on a team last year and if they lost their roster spot because of the new roster limits, as a result of the House settlement or was an eligible member of a team in 2024-25, such as walk-ons or was recruited and assured by their school of a 2025-26 roster spot.

Athletes put on a DSA list are exempt from roster limits at their current school and are exempt from roster limits at their new school should they transfer. The DSA tag remains with the athlete for their career, which was another piece negotiated in the settlement.

“I think it is the right thing to do,” Clemson head coach Dabo Swinney said in May to The Clemson Insider at the ACC’s Spring Meetings when asked about the possibility of those DSA that walked-on in 2024-25 getting the opportunity to be grandfathered in. “It is a win for the young people that have sacrificed a lot to create an opportunity for themselves in life through doing the work.”

Tuesday’s action by the NCAA came about after federal judge Claudia Wilken informed the NCAA back in May that she would not approve the House settlement unless some changes were made regarding new roster limits.

The settlement agreement initially required schools to trim their rosters. Football for instance, which has as many as 120 players (85 scholarships + walk-ons) will be forced to trim down to 105 scholarship players by the start of the season.

“You grandfather all the kids that were on the roster, and you give them an opportunity to finish. That’s the right thing to do,” Swinney said. “And to me, it’s low-hanging fruit. It avoids a lawsuit, most likely.

“The crazy thing, we said this last summer, but now that it’s gotten to the finish line, it’s pretty obvious – you’re going to take an opportunity away that otherwise would be there. It might matriculate three or four years or so, but we’ve got some kids that are going on their fourth year or their fifth year that we’re going to have to cut. Now, the good news, we don’t have to cut till the first week of [the Aug. 30 season opener vs.] LSU, to 105.”

Still, making those cuts is something Swinney has admittedly been “dreading.” He has not been a fan of having to cut his walk-on program and has expressed how difficult it would be to cut players this summer to meet the requirement.

Swinney, though, pointed out that some of Clemson’s players have already “kind of cut themselves.”

“We haven’t cut anybody yet – we had some kids that cut themselves because they knew, well, I’ve got to go through mat drills, spring ball, summer workouts, fall camp, just to get cut,” Swinney said. “And that was really sad for me because it’s just unbelievably tough and committed young people that are chasing their dreams and just trying to be the best version of themselves, and relationships and all the things that come from being a part of a team.”

Swinney, of course, was a walk-on at Alabama, where he earned a roster spot and eventually a scholarship. He was a part of the Tide’s 1992 National Championship team. He then became a graduate assistant at Alabama and later an assistant coach.

He made his way to Clemson as Tommy Bowden’s wide receivers coach in 2003 and became the Tigers interim head coach in 2008 following Bowden’s mid-season resignation and earned the permanent head coaching title in December of the same year.

Since then, Swinney has compiled a 180-47 record at Clemson, winning two National Championships and nine ACC titles.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NIL

CFB26 player rankings offers Virginia Tech football a dose of reality year to year

As you know by now, the college sports landscape has changed with NIL and the transfer portal. It’s the professional sports version of free agency. After having a lot of success with retention following the 2023 season, Virginia Tech football coach Brent Pry had the opposite happen following a frustrating 6-6 2024 campaign after losing […]

Published

on


As you know by now, the college sports landscape has changed with NIL and the transfer portal. It’s the professional sports version of free agency.

After having a lot of success with retention following the 2023 season, Virginia Tech football coach Brent Pry had the opposite happen following a frustrating 6-6 2024 campaign after losing several key players to the portal. Let’s not forget about the talent lost to the NFL Draft as well. With all the losses Hokies suffered, Pry and his staff did a nice job of getting talent through the portal for the 2025 season, and how things end up panning out remains to be seen, but College Football 26 gives fans a look at what will be more common in the future.

Eight of the top 13 Virginia Tech players in College Football 26 are transfers

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but in reality, it shouldn’t. In College Football 26, eight of the top 13 players for Virginia Tech are transfers. The only top 13-rated players coming back are quarterback Kyron Drones, kicker John Love, defensive tackle Kelvin Gilliam, Jr., tight end Benji Gosnell, and linebacker Caleb Woodson.

Again, this is just a video game we are talking about, but it underscores a dose of reality that the transfer portal is one of the biggest parts of college football, and you could say that it’s bigger than high school recruiting. I hate to say it, but how many of the high school commits that schools get will eventually end up in the transfer portal before their careers are over? A lot.

Now this won’t have an effect on the field for the Hokies, but if you have or are planning on getting College Football 26, be ready to learn some of the names of the new Hokies before the 2025 season actually starts on the field on Aug. 31 against South Carolina in Atlanta.





Link

Continue Reading

NIL

Paul Finebaum believes Colorado will be ‘painfully boring and perhaps even mediocre’ in 2025

At Big 12 Media Days on Wednesday, Colorado head coach Deion Sanders called for the NCAA to place a cap on teams’ NIL spending on rosters. During an appearance on First Take on Thursday, ESPN’s Paul Finebaum criticized Sanders for complaining about other teams’ spending. “In a perfect world, of course, I agree, but we […]

Published

on


At Big 12 Media Days on Wednesday, Colorado head coach Deion Sanders called for the NCAA to place a cap on teams’ NIL spending on rosters. During an appearance on First Take on Thursday, ESPN’s Paul Finebaum criticized Sanders for complaining about other teams’ spending.

“In a perfect world, of course, I agree, but we don’t live in a perfect world in college football, which is one reason it makes it so bizarrely interesting,” Finebaum said. “I find it just a tad bit interesting and maybe a slight bit hypocritical that Deion Sanders after his two great players — I mean, we’re not just talking about good players in terms of Travis Hunter, one of the best players in modern college football history — as they depart, suddenly, Deion wants a cap.

“Can you imagine what Travis Hunter would have been worth and would Deion have been in favor of a cap then? Of course not. So, Deion is simply trying to tell the media, ‘Hey, let’s talk about something other than my football team, which is going to be painfully boring, and perhaps even mediocre this year.”

Finebaum’s final note is harsh, but Colorado realistically won’t have an easy path in front of it this fall. The team is returning just eight total starters from last season, and lost starting quarterback Shedeur Sanders and 2025 Heisman Trophy winner Travis Hunter to the NFL Draft this offseason.

Nonetheless, Colorado didn’t allow outside criticism to stop it last year. After an underwhelming 2023 campaign, many analysts questioned Deion Sanders’ ability to lead the program to success.

Sanders silenced his doubters in 2024 by leading Colorado to a 9-4 overall record and a 7-2 mark in conference play. Now, Sanders will look to shock his critics once again with a set of fresh faces. Of course, Sanders believes it’d be easier to accomplish his goals if he weren’t facing teams with far greater spending budgets.

“I wish there was a cap,” Sanders said. “Like, the top-of-the-line player makes this and if you’re not that type of guy, you know you’re not going to make that. That’s what the NFL does. The problem is, you’ve got a guy that’s not that darn good, but he could go to another school and they give him another half a million dollars. You can’t compete with that. It don’t make sense.

“You talk about equality … all you have to do is look at the playoffs and see what those teams spent, and you understand darn near why they’re in the playoffs. It’s kind of hard to compete with somebody who’s giving $25, $30 million to a darn freshman class. It’s crazy.”



Link

Continue Reading

NIL

NIL Alert: $2.8 Billion Athlete Revenue Settlement Approved – Sport

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. On June 6, 2025, U.S. Northern District of California Judge Claudia Wilken approved the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA’s) $2.8 billion athlete revenue settlement (Settlement) in the consolidated case, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation.1 The Settlement will reimburse […]

Published

on



To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On June 6, 2025, U.S. Northern District of California Judge
Claudia Wilken approved the National Collegiate Athletic
Association’s (NCAA’s) $2.8 billion athlete revenue
settlement (Settlement) in the consolidated case, In re College
Athlete NIL Litigation
.1 The Settlement will
reimburse a class of former college athletes for their previously
withheld name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation going back to
2016, with the majority of the Settlement funds going to college
football and men’s basketball scholarship players, and lesser
amounts to women’s basketball players and student athletes from
other sports. The Settlement also creates a system for the
NCAA’s Division I (D-I) institutions to share billions of
dollars of revenue with their student-athletes over the next ten
years, beginning July 1, 2025, through revenue-sharing NIL
agreements.

Background

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v.
Alston, 594 U.S. 69, student-athletes gained the opportunity to
receive compensation from third parties using their NIL. Although
hundreds of thousands of student-athletes have since profited, two
issues persisted: (1) the rules restricted NCAA member conferences
and schools from directly sharing revenue derived from the
commercial use of student-athletes’ NIL with
the student-athletes and (2) studentathletes who finished
playing before the Supreme Court’s decision lost the
opportunity to earn revenue from their college’s commercial
exploitation of their NIL. 

The In re: College Athlete NIL Litigation
Settlement

Subjects of the Settlement & Voluntary Opt-In /
Opt-Out 

The NCAA and the “Power Five” conferences (Conference
Defendants)—Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), the Big Ten
Conference, Inc. (Big Ten), the Big 12 Conference, Inc. (Big 12),
the Pac-12 Conference (Pac-12), and the Southeastern Conference
(SEC) (collectively, the Defendants)—and their “Member
Institutions” (meaning, any college, school, or university
that is a member in any sport of the North Carolina –
that was until a lawsuit was filed against the state’s Board of
Education compelling them to do otherwise.

That lawsuit, brought by Rolanda Brandon, on behalf of her minor
son Faizon Brandon (a highly rated 5-star quarterback), was filed
on August 23, 2024, in North Carolina’s General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division against the North Carolina State
Board of Education and North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction. Per the complaint, the Brandons asserted that although
the state of North Carolina’s legislature did direct the North
Carolina State Board of Education to regulate how high school
athletes could monetize their NIL, that the Board, in lieu of
regulating, prohibited it outright.2 Because the Board
of Education exceeded their delegated statutory authority, the
Brandons’ claimed, its NIL prohibition was arbitrary and
capricious and therefore invalid pursuant to N.C. State Stat.
Section 1-253 and the North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 57.
The Brandons’ sought a preliminary injunction against the
Board’s NIL ban due to the fact that Faizon and his family
would be irreparably harmed financially because it precluded them
from entering into a formal licensing and endorsement agreement
with NIL Sponsor 1, while also foreclosing any
additional opportunities with other businesses in the
future.3 

By way of background, in September of 2023, the North Carolina
state legislature adopted a bill directing the Board of Education
to “adopt rules governing high school interscholastic athletic
activities conducted by public school units” including
“student amateur status requirements, and rules related to use
of a student’s name, image, and likeness.”4 On
July 1, 2024, the North Carolina State Board of Education, in lieu
of adopting a set of regulatory rules, instead outright banned
every public high school athlete from using his or her name, image
or likeness for commercial purposes.5 That outright
prohibition, however, apparently was an overreach by the Board of
Education because on October 1, 2024, Superior Court Judge Graham
Shirley granted the Brandons’ motion for preliminary injunction
and enjoined the Board from prohibiting any athlete attending a
public school in the state of North Carolina from exercising his or
her right to monetize their NIL.

Although the state of North Carolina’s ruling is not legal
precedent for the other remaining states currently foreclosing high
school athletes from monetizing their NIL, those states should
take notice and understand that their prohibition may be vulnerable
to a legal challenge. That being said, with no national standards
regarding NIL, most of the forty states that do allow for
monetization rest upon their high school athletics governing body
to formulate any and all rules and regulations. This leads to a
variation of standards between states, but there are a few key
restrictions present in most of these rules that high school
athletes should be aware of:

  • High school athletes typically may not refer to or include
    their school’s uniforms, logos, colors or facilities of the
    state’s high school athletic association in their NIL
    activities.

  • High school athletes are typically prohibited from partnering
    with gambling, alcohol, tobacco, weapons, firearms, ammunition, and
    other adult categories brands. In those states where NIL op

portunities are allowed, high school athletes have a chance for
a significant financial windfall. However, athletes, their parents
and those advising them must ensure that any NIL agreement is in
accordance with the applicable rules of their state, since
noncompliance could lead to loss of eligibility to participate in
athletic competition, which will certainly jeopardize any future
athletic and financial opportunities.

NCAA D-I and/or a Conference Defendant)—plus Notre
Dame—are automatically bound to the Settlement and must
comply with its terms and requirements. Non–Power Five D-I
schools are not automatically covered by the revenue-sharing
component of the Settlement; however, they did have the opportunity
to opt in to the Settlement by June 15, 2025, to share NIL-related
revenue with athletes and join the enforcement and reporting
framework.

Notably, the Ivy League decided not to opt in. Ivy League
schools do not offer athletic scholarships, using need and
merit-based financial aid instead. The Ivy League views the
Settlement’s revenue-sharing model as a departure from its
principles of no athletic scholarships and avoidance of
pay-for-play. Although Ivy League athletes will not have the
opportunity to share revenue derived from their schools’
exploitation of their NIL, they can still pursue third-party NIL
deals.

Further, athletes who did not want to be part of the class (and
therefore want to preserve the right to sue the NCAA and Power Five
conferences for antitrust-related claims) had the opportunity to
opt out, which would exclude them from all aspects of the
Settlement.

Future Institutional RevenueSharing Framework

Beginning July 1, 2025, NCAA D-I and Power Five Member
Institutions may enter into exclusive or non-exclusive NIL licenses
and/or endorsement agreements with athletes to share revenue
for athletes’ NIL and institutional brand promotion, excluding
broadcast rights for a term not to exceed the student-athlete’s
eligibility to participate in NCAA sports. Member Institutions may
act as the marketing agent for studentathletes with respect to
third-party NIL contracts.

Although Ivy League athletes will not have the
opportunity to share revenue derived from their schools’
exploitation of their NIL, they can still pursue third-party NIL
deals.

Further, Member Institutions, and Notre Dame, can provide
studentathletes with additional direct payments and/or benefits
over and above annual existing scholarships and all other benefits,
capped at $20.5 million per school for 2025–2026, increasing
~4% annually for the following ten years; however, the increase
will be reevaluated every three years based on increases in certain
sports-related revenue among the Conference Defendants and Notre
Dame.

Enforcement & Oversight

All D-I student-athletes must report to their school and/or the
“Designated Reporting Entity” (managed by Deloitte) any
and all third-party NIL contracts or payments with a total value of
$600 or more on a schedule to be determined by the Defendants.

The College Sports Commission (CSC), an independent regulatory
body established by the Power Five, is the central enforcement
authority for the Settlement’s new compensation model and will
oversee all enforcement of the Settlement terms including
“Revenue Sharing,” “Name, Image, and Likeness
Deals,” and “Roster Limits.” The CSC states that the
NCAA “remains responsible for enforcement of rules not created
in connection with the settlement.”

Retroactive Benefits Pool

Under the Settlement, a total of approximately $2.8 billion in
backdamages will be distributed over ten years (~$280 million per
year) to eligible D-I athletes for past NIL restrictions
(2016–2024). This consists of a $1.976 billion NIL fund plus
$600 million for pay-for-play claims. Approximately 90% of the
Settlement will be paid to former football and men’s basketball
players because the payout formula is based on historical media
revenue and licensing data, with the remaining funds reserved for
other men’s sports and women’s sports.

Roster & Scholarship Policies

All NCAA D-I athletic scholarship limits are eliminated;
instead, the NCAA may adopt D-I roster limits, capping the
total number of athletes who can participate on a team. The new
roster caps are largely modeled on existing scholarship limits.
This shift gives schools greater flexibility on how they can
allocate aid and compensation and not affect athletes who were
already enrolled or who had signed letters of intent before April
7, 2024—this ensures no current student-athlete loses a spot
due to the new limits during their eligibility. Each school must
submit its list of exempt/grandfathered athletes by July 6,
2025.

Still, Member Institutions will have the option of making
incremental athletic scholarships available to student-athletes
above the number currently permitted by NCAA D-I rules for a
particular sport, subject to the roster limits. However, the full
cost-of-attendance dollar value of any new or incremental athletic
scholarships—that were not previously permitted by NCAA D-I
rules—up to $2.5 million (the Athletic Scholarship Cap) will
count against the pool of funds each Member Institution may
allocate to student-athletes.

Title IX Objections on Appeal to the Ninth Circuit

Before approving the Settlement, Judge Wilken held a hearing on
April 7, 2025, where she addressed objections raised by several
female student-athletes. The objectors argued that the proposed
$2.8 billion in backpay would disproportionately benefit male
athletes—particularly those in football and men’s
basketball—due to historic and systemic disparities in media
exposure and revenue generation.

Judge Wilken rejected these Title IX objections, reasoning that
the instant antitrust case had nothing to do with Title IX, a
federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education
programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance.
While the court declined to consider Title IX arguments in the
context of this Settlement, Judge Wilken did leave the door open
for future Title IX lawsuits based on how schools make future
payments to athletes.

Almost immediately after Judge Wilken’s final judgment,
approximately twelve female athletes filed a notice of appeal to
the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the $2.8 billion settlement
violates Title IX based on inequalities in compensation. While
injunctive reform under the Settlement is already in effect, damage
payments are stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Impacts of the Settlement

Student-Athlete Transfers, Eligibility, and Poaching

On April 22, 2024, the NCAA adopted legislation removing limits
on the number of times an academically eligible student-athlete may
transfer during their collegiate career. This change allows
athletes to transfer multiple times without penalty, provided they
are in good academic standing.

This Settlement is expected to significantly increase transfer
activity. In particular, student-athletes at Ivy League
institutions and non–Power Five or non-NCAA schools may be
incentivized to transfer to schools that participate in
revenue-sharing, offer larger athletics budgets, and actively
support third-party NIL opportunities. With no threat of losing
eligibility, transferring becomes an attractive avenue for athletes
seeking both competitive and financial advancement.

However, transferring raises concerns about schools poaching
studentathletes who have already signed NIL contracts with other
programs. This exact issue was raised on June 20, 2025, when the
University of Wisconsin (UW) and its NIL collective filed a
complaint against the University of Miami (UM) over alleged
tortious interference with a two-year binding revenue-sharing
contract that was set to begin July 1, 2025. UW claims that UM
communicated with a UW defensive back, Xavier Lucas, who had not
entered the transfer portal, “knowingly inducing” him to
breach his contract with UW. The studentathlete had reportedly
requested to enter the portal, but UW refused, based on their
agreement.

This case is the first of its kind and may set a critical
precedent on whether schools can legally recruit student-athletes
already under binding revenue-sharing contracts tied to the
Settlement. The Big Ten is supporting UW with the lawsuit against
UM.

Questions on Employee Status

While the Settlement allows schools to directly pay their
athletes and share revenue, it does not redefine the
student-athletes as employees. However, student-athlete
compensation creates ambiguity regarding whether they are
“employees” under federal or state law, allowing
student-athletes to collect benefits and unionize. The question of
whether student-athletes are considered employees under
the Fair Labor Standards Act is currently being litigated in
the Third Circuit in Johnson v. NCAA. If a court
eventually does rule that student-athletes are employees, the
Settlement has provided that the NCAA or Power Five conferences may
modify or terminate their agreements, accordingly.

Potential Federal Legislation

There is currently no NIL federal legislation in place, but
prior to the Settlement, many state legislatures were actively
enacting NIL laws. Although the Settlement fundamentally reshapes
the national college sports landscape, it does not override or
preempt existing state laws. Instead, it operates alongside state
legislation, creating a layered legal environment where schools
must comply with both the Settlement terms and their state’s
NIL statutes. Where conflicts exist, states are prompted to revise
their laws to harmonize with the Settlement and avoid competitive
disadvantages in recruiting.

Because the Settlement does not have federal preemption power,
there is growing pressure for federal legislation. The NCAA has
asked Congress for legislation that would grant it an antitrust
exemption, preempt all state laws related to NIL, and restrict
student-athletes from being considered employees.

Congress is not alone in examining the impact the Settlement has
on college athletics, and the disparity it creates among sports and
athletes. President Donald Trump is reportedly considering an
executive order to regulate NIL deals in college athletics. He has
instructed White House aides to begin studying what an order would
look like. Other government officials, such as Rep. Michael
Baumgartner (R. WA.), may propose legislation to replace the NCAA
with a new body headed by a presidential appointee to ensure that
NIL funds and revenues are shared with schools and distributed
“equally among all student athletes of such
institutions.” This Bill, H.R. 2663, the Restore College
Sports Act, has been assigned to the House Committee on Education
and Workforce.

Conclusion

The Settlement represents a transformative moment in the legal,
financial, and regulatory framework of college athletics. It not
only compensates thousands of former student-athletes for years of
denied NIL revenue but also creates a forward-looking
revenue-sharing model that provides substantial compensation to
certain student-athletes. While the Settlement brings long-overdue
benefits, it also introduces a host of unresolved legal and policy
challenges, such as Title IX concerns, transfer/poaching disputes,
questions surrounding employment status, and conflicting state
legislation. As these issues continue to unfold, it will be
interesting to see how schools, athletes, and lawmakers respond to
this new era in college sports.

Footnotes

1. This consolidated litigation began as two separate
actions: (1) House v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association
, 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal) and (2) Oliver v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association
, 4:20-cv-04527 (N.D.
Cal). ). The litigation was further consolidated with two similar
actions: (3) Hubbard v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association
, 4:23-cv-01593 (N.D. Cal) and (4) Carter v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association
, 23-cv-06325, (N.D.
Cal.).

2. Brandon v North Carolina Board of Education, et al,
24CV026975-910

3. 24CV026975-910 Complaint at page 20.

4. 2023 N.C. Sess. L. 133 Section 17. (a) (N.C. Gen Stat.
Section 115C-407.55(1)(h))

5. ATHL-008 (NIL Prohibition).

Originally Published by The NIL Institutional
Report

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.



Link

Continue Reading

NIL

Frustrations Mount As New NIL Deal Approval Process Lags

Frustrations Mount As New NIL Deal Approval Process Lags Privacy Manager Link 0

Published

on





Frustrations Mount As New NIL Deal Approval Process Lags


































Link

Continue Reading

NIL

AJ Dybantsa Makes Big Move on Wednesday to Expand His $4.1 Million NIL Portfolio

AJ Dybantsa Makes Big Move on Wednesday to Expand His $4.1 Million NIL Portfolio originally appeared on Athlon Sports. Although the next college basketball season feels like it’s years away from starting, BYU’s No. 1 overall recruit, AJ Dybantsa, has already proven he is a star. Advertisement This past week, he helped lead a star-studded […]

Published

on


AJ Dybantsa Makes Big Move on Wednesday to Expand His $4.1 Million NIL Portfolio originally appeared on Athlon Sports.

Although the next college basketball season feels like it’s years away from starting, BYU’s No. 1 overall recruit, AJ Dybantsa, has already proven he is a star.

Advertisement

This past week, he helped lead a star-studded Team USA squad to a gold medal in the FIBA U19 World Cup in Switzerland, earning tournament MVP honors. On Wednesday, he inked a massive NIL deal with one of the most prestigious companies in sports memorabilia.

As announced on social media by Topps, which has been making iconic collectible sports cards since 1950, Dybantsa and the memorabilia giant have inked an NIL partnership.

“JUST IN: We’re excited to announce that we’ve signed BYU star AJ Dybantsa to an exclusive trading card & memorabilia deal 🏀🔥 Welcome to the family, AJ,” read the post.

BYU college basketball signee AJ Dybantsa.AJ Dybantsa/BYU Athletics

BYU college basketball signee AJ Dybantsa.AJ Dybantsa/BYU Athletics

For Dybantsa, in addition to his latest move, he now has NIL deals with major brands such as Nike, Fanatics and Red Bull. His $4.1 million NIL Valuation is also the fourth-highest among all college athletes according to On3, trailing only Ohio State wide receiver Jeremiah Smith, Miami quarterback Carson Beck and Texas quarterback Arch Manning.

Advertisement

It’s unclear how much this deal is worth, but it’s hard to imagine his valuation won’t see an increase in the near future.

As for BYU, there may not be a college basketball program with as much hype around them as the Cougars. They brought in a recruiting class that On3 ranks as the sixth-best in the country, complemented by a transfer portal class that ranks as the No. 32 class in the country.

With a major buy-in from boosters, the pressure will be on in Provo next season.

Related: Walter Clayton Jr. Turns Heads With Latest NBA Summer League Explosion

This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jul 9, 2025, where it first appeared.



Link

Continue Reading

NIL

Jonathan Perrin On NIL & College Baseball’s Financial Landscape

Image credit: Jonathan Perrin (Zachary Lucy/Four Seam Images) The phrase “a new era of college athletics” has gotten a lot of run over the past decade thanks to the advent of things like NIL and the transfer portal. As of July 1, 2025, fans of college athletics—especially baseball—find themselves in yet another new era.  For […]

Published

on



Image credit:

Jonathan Perrin (Zachary Lucy/Four Seam Images)

The phrase “a new era of college athletics” has gotten a lot of run over the past decade thanks to the advent of things like NIL and the transfer portal. As of July 1, 2025, fans of college athletics—especially baseball—find themselves in yet another new era. 

For college baseball, the results of the House v. NCAA settlement mean an increase to 34 scholarships for programs wanting to fully fund. Schools can also now provide “direct institutional support for talent acquisition,” allowing programs to pay athletes as independent contractors to play at their schools.

Jonathan Perrin, a former Oklahoma State and Brewers minor league righthander who now works as a certified financial planner, joined the latest episode of BA’s ‘From Phenom to the Farm’ podcast to discuss the winners and losers of this new phase of college baseball.

And he can easily point to one obvious winner. 

“The biggest winner (is) the SEC,” Perrin said. “It just means more down there. There are certainly levels to this in terms of levels to investment when it comes to NIL, and even, quite frankly, legislation at the state level … They have the most money, they have the most resources and I think you can see in the transfer portal with the types of players they’re getting, they are just offering numbers that schools in other conferences can’t offer.”

Want more podcasts like this one? Subscribe below!

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Player FM

On the opposite end, mid-major programs that lack resources of Power 4 schools—especially ones coming off highly-visible postseason runs like the recent displays from Murray State and UTSA—will struggle to keep a roster together. 

“It used to be you run to Omaha, and the coach gets a contract extension or he’s going somewhere else,” Perrin said. “Now, it’s the coach gets a contract extension or he’s going somewhere else, and your entire starting nine is thinking about the same thing.

“Murray State had a player just recently go in the portal, and go to Ole Miss—if you can’t beat them, pay them to come to your school.”

Mid-majors have naturally always had a tougher time building an Omaha contender than Vanderbilt or Tennessee, but that task has become even more difficult. Teams that have the financial resources and allure of a big conference mean the path to contending in the postseason for mid-majors will require a specific type of roster creation. 

“You gotta be old, and you’ve have to have played a lot of baseball,” Perrin said. “Junior college is going to be a huge component of that, where you’re able to get guys who have played a couple years of junior college baseball—they’ve played a lot of games.”

It’s easy to see benefits on the player side, as teams are no longer capped at finding a way to spread 11.7 scholarships across a roster. More scholarship availability, plus NIL dollars for top contributors, means less out-of-pocket school cost and more money being paid to baseball players than ever before. 

However, for Power 4 schools, that means players viewed as fringe roster types—like preferred walk-ons who would previously have found themselves on a P4 roster—could lose out in deference to teams choosing to allocate their resources to proven contributors at lower levels. College rosters have never been older, meaning there’s less opportunity for young players to slot into a power conference lineup. 

This also affects the draft decision for high school prospects. Initially at the onset of the NIL era, some draft-eligible players were asking for higher figures to sign because they had NIL leverage. But the increased age of Power 4 rosters could lead some players to opt for the clearer developmental path of pro ball. 

“It’s really hard for freshman right now to get playing time, especially at P4 schools,” Perrin said. “Agents and parents are starting to realize that, ‘Wait a second, if my end goal is to get to the big leagues, what is the best opportunity to make that happen?’”

Although the new rules may keep some players from reaching campus, it could keep older players around for another year. Draft-eligible juniors and sophomores landing in the 11-20 round range who teams are unlikely to break into their bonus pool for might actually lose money in the short run by opting for pro ball. 

“That $150,000 bonus is not what it used to be,” Perrin said. “There are a lot of kids in college baseball this year who are going to make more than that … Ff you’re getting $150K to go play for the Royals, and Arkansas or LSU are paying you $250K to stay here, I can’t speak for everybody, but I’m going back to school in that situation.” 

Even top Power 4 programs are going to feel the strain when it comes to tapping their finances to keep up with competitors. For top talent out of high school and in the portal, the NIL bill comes due yearly, and programs who want a yearly seat in Omaha will need top-tier facilities. 

“The demands on the recruiting base and the alumni donor base are going to be so much higher moving forward,” Perrin said.

It’ll take years for the ramifications of the July 1 changes to be fully understood, but in year one, the theme of this new era of college baseball is clear. 

“It’s going to very much be a financial arms race when it comes to being competitive,” Perrin said.



Link

Continue Reading

Most Viewed Posts

Trending