NIL isn't the problem with college sports. It exposed it.

Recent changes in college sports rules have led to confusion between name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights and pay-for-play concepts. NIL allows athletes to earn money from the commercial use of their identity, similar to compensation models for actors and musicians, while pay-for-play involves compensation for athletic performance. Critics argue that current NIL regulations are limiting athletes' opportunities instead of protecting them or the sport's integrity.

Athletic departments face financial challenges, with median Division I departments posting significant net losses despite growing media rights revenues. The debate over NIL and athlete compensation lacks sufficient input from the athletes themselves, who are directly impacted by these policies. To address these issues, any reform should center on the athletes, ensuring that compensation models and endorsement opportunities are transparent and equitable.

The broader college sports system, particularly football and men's basketball, generates significant revenue, yet Olympic and women’s sports also contribute to institutional value. Creating opportunities across all sports is essential for enhancing both individual schools and the system as a whole.