S1: Hey , San Diego , it’s Andrew Bracken in for Jade Hindman. Today we hear about the state of nil and its impact on college sports. This is KPBS Midday Edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. Should college athletes be paid ? Are they students or professionals ? These are questions that have been debated for decades before lawsuits led to Nil deals for many college sports stars. That’s name , image and likeness. And it’s at the heart of a transformation in college athletics in recent years. But universities , athletes and fans are awaiting a final ruling to a long running lawsuit that could change the rules for college sports. Kim Massey is the executive director of athletics at the University of San Diego. He spoke to KPBS Midday Edition host Jade Hyneman last week. Here’s that interview.

S2:

S3: No , no , it’s a really good question. I appreciate you having me on to talk about it. It’s really important that the general public understands what this is , where we’ve been , where we’re headed. You know , nil now has been around almost four years , and it’s really changed the landscape of college athletics. And it’s been a long time coming in terms of allowing the athletes to profit off their name , image and likeness the way any student has been able to for many years. And , you know , I think many of us in the industry saw a lot of different rabbit holes and where this could go and how it has gone has been a little bit exactly like we thought. And it’s gone a little bit , frankly , off the rails. We live in the West Coast and it is the true wild , wild West. And in some ways it’s a complete mess. That being said , there are some values. There are some good things about it that I’m sure we’ll talk about.

S2:

S3: Um , now they can do a camp. You know , they can make a public appearance and be paid for it. They can , um , be a part of a social media campaign and promote a business or an organization and be paid for their , for their time and efforts. In the past , that was not the case yet. A student who was a great piano player could be paid to go to downtown San Diego and play at an event and be paid $500 for their three hours of playing. You know that that was not the case for an athlete. And now we’re in a situation whether it’s equitable , whether now they can do things that other students could do for years , but it’s really gone off the rails in terms of the pay for play side of things that we’re unfortunately seeing. Right.

S2: Right. So , you know , to make a playing college , athletes are now able to get paid for their work. Um , and it’s more equitable.

S3: Essentially , they’re being recruited out of high school , recruited from one school to the next. There’s a there’s some guardrails , but probably a lack of a real structure. In every year you’re seeing specifically in men’s basketball rosters , turnover by half or more because As athletes have , you know , feel like they have value to go somewhere else and get paid more money. And it’s really challenging to control this. And I think there’s a lack of structure in terms of how do we manage the expectations of the athletes. But also there’s , I would say a lot of bad actors out there who are not really helping the athletes in terms of being consultants and guides and agents , and it’s really gotten to a point where it becomes this bartering zone of one school to a next school , trying to have a roster , but also still still get the right kids at the right institution who want to get a degree , feels like that’s that’s where I say going off the rails. Yeah.

S2: Yeah. So so right now it’s equitable for athletes. Not so much for colleges. Yeah.

S3: Yeah. It’s just really hard , you know , when you are building something special on your roster and you’re trying to build chemistry. And ultimately we want all our athletes to get degrees. And many of them now are looking at a one year scenario where maybe they go somewhere for a year and they play really well , which is great. And now they’re more marketable and now they’re heading to the next institution. So , you know , I think we’re trying to figure out how do we still keep the higher ed principles , because we are working for institutions of higher education still in place , while really negotiating a scenario where it’s very much like a professional sports organization and it’s a business. And what’s that juxtaposition between the two , and how do we still keep it , keep the integrity of what we’re trying to accomplish with 18 to 23 year olds ? Hmm.

S2: You know , one piece you touched on there is the ability for athletes to to move to a different school , when in the past they were kind of tied to to a school , right. I mean , how do you find a balance there ? Yeah.

S3: You know , it’s a tough balance. Um , you know , I think a lot of high school athletes , right , came to school for they wanted to get a business degree. They wanted to play for a certain coach. They want to be geographically close to where their family is , and they can see them play. And I feel like a lot of that now is a little bit gone by the wayside. It’s okay , I’m going to go to this place because I can get playing time and increase my value. And again , I do want to say this. This is not the norm. I mean , there’s a certain percentage of athletes in this case , the vast majority are still coming to school for the right reasons. They want to get a great degree. They want to have a good college experience. They are coming to have that collegial opportunity to win championships. But there is a subsection of athletes that where it’s really hard to really find that true identity of why they’re coming to the institution , and how do we build that identity with that within that team. Okay.

S2: Okay. Well , all of that leads to this settlement that’s currently being finalized.

S3: Essentially , this settlement is the culmination of multiple lawsuits , mostly hinging around the fact that athletes for years did not profit off their name , image and likeness. And , you know , looking at the culmination of what the lawsuits might lead to in terms of both dollars and time. You know , plaintiffs decided along with the NCAA , let’s let’s do a settlement that’s going to allow something to have come in place where there’s some back pay for for former athletes up to a certain number of years , but also moving forward , it does allow institutions to essentially do revenue sharing with the current athletes. So it’s twofold. In addition to that , probably the most controversial piece of this settlement is that there are now going to be roster limits in place for each team in each program , so that typically outside of for most sports has not been the case. So now there’s going to be a roster limit. Essentially we can share revenue with athletes. And then there’s going to be a back pay for athletes for who did not profit out their name , image and likeness. So that’s in a nutshell. Uh , this settlement would be in place for ten years. And that’s what we are sort of trying to navigate what this actually looks like as we move forward. Mm.

S2: Mm. So one question a lot of people have is , you know. How did we get here with college athletics ? What was the spirit behind this push for Nil deals in college sports ? Yeah.

S3: You know , it’s a great question. You know I think this has been a long time coming. And I think if you look back at the early 2000 , you saw a proliferation of coaches salaries , administrator salaries. You saw a lot more money being tied into the conferences in terms of multimedia rights. Conferences started to profit from TV deals. And that filtered down , of course , to the institutions. And , you know , it came a point in time where I think a lot of the athletes and others said , wait a second. You know , these institutions are profiting off of us and making millions of dollars in some cases , and we’re not getting paid anything , although they were on scholarship and getting paid through , you know , with , with food and things of that nature. But through a culmination of many years , I think there was a groundswell , really , that probably became untenable to the point where we get to where we are now , where , you know , in 2021 , this , this nil became in play. And this has been a probably 15 to 20 years , if not more in the making , though , because there is such a proliferation of money , uh , being involved. And it did feel like you were becoming a little bit more professionalized , specifically in a few sports. And the question is , why are we not sharing this with the athletes ? So that’s sort of why we came to where we are. I , you know , being someone who’s been in college athletics 24 years , I wish earlier on the process , years and years ago , there was some kind of revenue sharing. There was the ability for the athletes to profit off their name , image and likeness. And I don’t think we’d be where we are. It’s just it’s a it’s a runaway train. And I think we could have maybe started this as slowly and built it and put some guardrails around it. But here we are and we have to figure it out. Yeah.

S2: Yeah. I mean , yeah , but I you know , I recall hearing a story about , um , a college athlete who had his name and image and likeness and all of that on jerseys and all kinds of things. Um , but couldn’t afford to even buy a jersey for himself. So. Yeah. Um , you know , I mean , how much. So let’s talk about. I mean , how much were you ? Our university’s making off of these athletes and teams.

S3: You know , it really depends on institution. You know , there’s a lot of different types of institutions. I think that’s another one of the challenges in Division one. You know , there’s 360 plus different institutions. And they range from budgets that are 5 or 6 million up to , you know , the Texas and Ohio states of the world who are well over 200 million. And they’re literally all in the same division with the same amount of same rules. So it really depends also on the conference. You know , some conferences specifically what we call the power for now , the SEC , the big 12 , the ACC in the in the Big Ten are at a level that’s just much higher. And even within that for the SEC and Big Ten are at a different level than the other two. So many of these institutions are getting a significant amount of funds on multimedia rights that come to their institution every single year. And , you know , we’ve gone. We’ve just gone through a cycle of some of those conference distributions changing , and you’ll see another one coming up here in 2028 to 29 , 2030. Um , so the shifting is is underfoot and it’s happening rapidly , but in some cases it’s very significant in other cases. It’s not a big distribution. You know , there isn’t maybe a large market or perhaps they don’t have a football program that brings in a lot of money or a basketball program that does. So it’s quite a significant gap between many schools that are still in the same division , if that makes sense. Mhm.

S2: Mhm. How much are players making right now. How big are these NFL deals. Yeah.

S3: Yeah. You know the vast majority are actually not that big. You’re talking several maybe a couple hundred bucks. That’s the vast majority. But you do have cases now where you have certain quarterbacks or point guards or centers and people like that and making literally in the millions. And , you know , you might have a few other student athletes who might not be as successful on the court or on the field , but their social media influencers , and they’re doing really very well. I think about Libby Dunn , who is a gymnast at LSU , and Angel Reese , who played basketball there. You know , there’s some good examples of people who’ve used their social media influence in a really creative , entrepreneurial way and made a ton of money. And then you have the cases with some of the men’s basketball and football players and a few of the women’s basketball players as well , who , based on their on court , on field exploits , have had valuations in the millions as well. So it’s again , that’s probably the 1 or 2% , the vast majority. Much , much less. And frankly , there’s probably , you know , a high percentage of athletes not engaging in all activities at all. It takes time , it takes energy , it takes and creative spirit. And some are very , very busy with their studies and being a college athlete as it is. So I think the narrative from the media a lot of times is that everybody’s earning hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. That is very far from the truth.

S2:

S3: A little bit more parity. You don’t see someone just three or 4 or 5 schools that are just way better than everybody else. I think you’re seeing institutions that have had , frankly , large budgets , and they’re able to pay athletes better than others , and that’s going to help them. But also , you see athletes who maybe started at a large institution that’s a high profile school , and they didn’t get playing time , and they’re good players , but now they’re transferring down a level to a school. That’s still Division one , but maybe it’s what we call a mid-major or or smaller institution. And you find that players are staying in school even longer. And we got through Covid and they had an extra year there. And some athletes who are not draft prospects , instead of trying to declare for a draft , they say , well , I can actually make more money in college now I’m staying in college. So you’re seeing rosters get older. You’re seeing more individual athletes who’ve had more experience. So you’re seeing a little bit more parity , I think. And like in the college basketball and maybe football to an extent than you did before , which is not bad for the game. Um , so I think we’ll see over time. It’s only been a few years , but it’s been really interesting to see some of the talent actually being leveled out in certain ways on different rosters at different sized schools.

S2:

S3: You know , I think there are quite a few sports where there’s been very , very little impact. You’re starting to see it creep into other sports like baseball , volleyball for sure , a little bit softball. You know , you have softball player for Texas Tech. She’s reportedly making a million plus a year. Sometimes you don’t know what’s true and what’s not true , but a lot of the quote unquote Olympic sports have been less impacted. Um , and I think part of that is due to what is deemed market value ? And they’re non-revenue sports. But occasionally you will see the athlete who again is very good on social media. They’re influencers. They’re really good at selling their name , image and likeness and utilizing that skill set an entrepreneurial way. But you are seeing some impacts and some other sports that you didn’t see probably 2 or 3 years ago.

S2: What role does the NCAA play in all this ? Yeah.

S3: They’re involved. I mean , they’re part of the settlement , you know , and I think they’ve come to the decision. And I’m not going to speak for their their president of the NCAA or their director. But you know , they’ve been a part of this House settlement. And they feel like there is still a little bit of protections here for amateurism , but also over the next ten years , potentially maybe less lawsuits. I don’t know if that’s the case. I would probably beg to differ. But , you know , I think there frankly , in some ways , you know , working with the plaintiffs on this and trying to determine what’s the best possible path forward that still retains the integrity of what collegiate sport is. And again , we are in institutions of higher ed , yet allowing some flexibility for athletes to profit and sort of , again move towards a professional model , but not truly as an employee. So there’s this fine line and balance. But yes , they’ve been very much at the table for all these discussions.

S2:

S3: And honestly to you know , as a private school , I think we do have some advantages at times because we can really help enrollment in a private school the way maybe a public institution is a little bit different. Um , you know , we are in a , in a place at a very stable conference , the West Coast Conference. And , you know , we have to be who we are. We’re not the same as a lot of power for schools , and we’re not going to have that kind of budget or revenue that to share. If we don’t have a football program that’s selling out on Saturdays , um , providing 70% of the revenue like some of those institutions do. So I think we have to temper expectations , but also be transparent about what our revenue sharing looks like and how we can compete. And I think part of us being where we’re at is understanding culturally how we can still bring in the right student athletes to the institution who can still get a degree at are academically rigorous school , a school that’s a faith based institution , but also in a large city that has a great marketplace for sports. You know , I do think optimistically , we can be extremely successful and very competitive , even with schools that are larger than us and have larger budgets. But I do think we have to be more careful and more considerate of funding the right fit for our athletes here in the midst of of all the chaos that’s going on around us.

S2: I’ve been speaking with Kim Yamasaki. He is the executive director of athletics at the University of San Diego. Kim , thank you so much for joining us.

S3: Of course , anytime. I appreciate you having me.

S1: That’s our show for today. I’m Andrew Bracken. KPBS Midday Edition airs on KPBS FM weekdays at noon , again at 8 p.m.. You can find past episodes at KPBS or wherever you listen. Thanks again for listening. Have a great day.

Michigan running back Justice Haynes has signed an equity partnership with Loom Juice. Facilitated by his agency ESM, Haynes now owns an interest in Loom through the new NIL deal.

One of the top returning running backs in college football, Haynes transferred from Alabama to Michigan this offseason, picking the Wolverines over South Carolina and Ole Miss. He finished as Alabama’s third-leading rusher in 2024 with 448 yards on 5.7 yards per carry and 7 touchdowns as a sophomore. He’ll have two more seasons of eligibility with the Wolverines.

A former top-50 recruit, Haynes is the latest ESM client to ink an equity-based partnership. ESM also negotiated the Cavinder Twins’ stake in Slate Milk and tennis phenom Anna Frey’s equity partnership with Ball Buddy.

“Justice’s influence extends beyond the football field,” ESM’s Dan Everett told On3. “His commitment to excellence and authenticity aligns seamlessly with Loom Juice’s mission to promote holistic wellness. This partnership exemplifies how athletes can leverage their platforms for meaningful, long-term brand engagements.”

Loom Juice, known for its innovative approach to health-conscious beverages, views this alliance as a strategic step to deepen its connection with a younger, health-aware demographic. By integrating Haynes into the company’s ownership structure, Loom signals a commitment to authentic representation and shared values.

The 5-foot-11, 210-pound running back was the No. 4 overall back in the transfer portal, according to On3. He is expected to have a relatively heavy workload and compete at the top of the depth chart with sophomore Jordan Marshall, who ran for 100 yards in the ReliaQuest Bowl win.

“Playing against Michigan in the Rose Bowl, I saw firsthand how disciplined and physical they were,” Justice Haynes said this spring. “That game really gave me a different level of respect for this program.

“… I wanted to go somewhere that felt like a brotherhood, that cared about doing things the right way — not just on the field, but off the field, too. Everything I saw from Michigan in that game and after — it just aligned.”

How USC is discussed in the national media matters. There are legitimate aspects to point at that require improvement, as is the case for any program in the nation. To go a step further and disingenuously make statements and to pretend certain things are the case when they simply are not is where the issues begin to take place.

For years, the SEC has artificially inflated its position and perception in the sport. Particularly on the recruiting trail, it is known that schools were offering money well before NIL and that they were doing it at a significantly higher rate and in a much more organized manner compared to teams in other conferences.

So for coach Kirby Smart to be ‘warning’ about the potential effects of NIL is laughable at face value. The playing field is simply more level in that regard. In terms of an aspect that USC can offer regardless of what the rules dictate, it is that it is a top school in the nation with a tremendous alumni base and national connections.

With the rules now allowing entities such as collectives to now grant opportunities for today’s student-athletes, the SEC is only lamenting the fact that they are losing grasp of this huge advantage that they have grown accustomed to for decades.

False narrative against USC area of recruiting is baseless

Moving on to On3, in an excerpt that was shared by the Founders Edits X account, they believe that SoCal talent just is not up to par with the rest of the country. Ignoring how any site that claims to be something of an authority on the sport could legitimately believe that, it only further shows why narratives matter.

Fortunately, while preseason can be a time to create narratives and attempt to project what is about to take place, every theory is tested, and the results on the field indicate whether a claim had a basis or not.

For the current and future USC players, seeing their abilities dismissed out of hand should light a fire and further provide motivation to prove that the Trojans are back.