Thesis:
“This paper argues that while the introduction of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights offers a more equitable approach to student-athlete compensation by granting athletes greater autonomy over their personal brands, it does not fully resolve the issue of fairness. NIL opportunities often reinforce existing disparities, particularly in terms of gender equity, with male athletes in more popular sports disproportionately benefiting. I will argue this position by first analyzing how NIL deals are largely concentrated in men’s sports, particularly in high-revenue sports like football and basketball. Second, I will explore the structural inequalities that limit female and lesser-known athletes’ access to lucrative NIL opportunities, such as media exposure and societal biases. Finally, I will advocate for additional policy reforms and institutional support to ensure that NIL rights are applied equitably across gender, sport, and background, addressing the ongoing disparities in student-athlete compensation.”
Main Claim
This paper argues that the introduction of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights as a solution to student-athlete compensation raises critical questions of justice, autonomy, and equity, challenging traditional views of amateurism in sports.
Reason 1: Disparity in NIL Deal Concentration Across Gender and High-Revenue Sports
The first reason is that NIL deals are largely concentrated in men’s sports, particularly in high-revenue sports like football and basketball. This supports my main claim because it illustrates that the current NIL landscape does not achieve its intended goal of equitable compensation for all student-athletes. If NIL rights are meant to empower athletes regardless of their gender or sport, then the overwhelming majority of deals going to male athletes signals a failure to address underlying disparities in the commercialization of college sports.
Evidence for this can be found in a report by the NCAA, which indicates that male athletes secured over 90% of the NIL deals shortly after regulations took effect. This stark imbalance raises questions about the fairness of the NIL system, as it reveals a structural bias that benefits male athletes disproportionately.
Reason 2: Structural Barriers Limiting Access for Female and Lesser-Known Athletes
The second reason is that structural barriers limit the access of female and lesser-known athletes to lucrative NIL opportunities. This supports my main claim by highlighting that, while NIL rights theoretically provide a platform for all athletes to profit, the reality is that not all athletes have equal access to these opportunities.
For instance, female athletes often face reduced media exposure and societal biases that diminish their marketability. A study published in the Journal of Sport Management showed that female athletes receive significantly less media coverage compared to their male counterparts, which directly impacts their ability to attract sponsorships. This evidence demonstrates that, without addressing these structural barriers, NIL rights cannot fulfill their promise of equitable compensation for all athletes.
Reason 3: Need for Additional Reforms to Ensure Equity
The third reason is the need for additional reforms to ensure that NIL rights are applied equitably across gender, sport, and background. This supports my main claim by asserting that simply allowing NIL rights is insufficient; systemic changes are necessary to ensure that these rights translate into genuine equity for all student-athletes.
For example, universities can create programs that provide marketing education and mentorship specifically for female and underrepresented athletes. Research indicates that targeted support can significantly enhance athletes’ brand-building capabilities and lead to increased NIL opportunities. By implementing reforms that prioritize equity, athletic programs can create an environment that truly empowers all student-athletes, ensuring that NIL rights serve as a fair solution to compensation issues.
Do name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights represent a fair solution to compensation issues?
I believe the question of whether name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights represent a fair solution to compensation issues prompts discussions about justice, autonomy, and value. It invites exploration of the ethical implications of compensating athletes for their personal brands, which challenges traditional notions of amateurism in sports. It also raises questions about equity, as it considers how NIL opportunities can impact athletes from different backgrounds and sports. This diserves a reflection on the balance between the commercial interests of athletic programs and the rights of individual athletes to benefit from their own identities.
Sources:
Masquelier-Page, Alice. “Unintended Consequences: How Nil in College Sports Has Raised Questions about Nonprofits.” The Associated Press, 30 July 2024, www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/unintended-consequences-how-nil-in-college-sports-has-raised-questions-about-nonprofits/.
I believe this source to be useful in my paper due to its perspective on nonprofit organizations formed to facilitate NIL deals, as it often blurs the lines between genuine charitable purposes and private gain for student-athletes.
“The NCAA recently contracted with a company to create a voluntary registry for agents, service providers and deals over $600, which may yield better information about the estimated $1.2 billion flowing through NIL collectives.” I choose this quote because of its statistics on the revenue of NIL deals through nonprofits
Moody, Josh. “Two Years in, Nil Is Fueling Chaos in College Athletics.” Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs, Inside Higher Ed, 7 June 2023, www.insidehighered.com/news/students/athletics/2023/06/07/two-years-nil-fueling-chaos-college-athletics.
I believe this source to be needed in my paper because it underscores that while NIL rights offer new opportunities for athletes to profit, they have also sparked challenges in areas like gender equity and fairness among schools.
“Suddenly an institution with 20 sports teams, for example, may find itself at the negotiating table with representatives from each athletic squad.” – This quote touches on the future of college athletics if there is no more money to fund other sports including womens.
Murphy, Dan. “NCAA Proposes Rule to Let Schools, Athletes Enter Nil Deals.” ESPN, ESPN Internet Ventures, 5 Dec. 2023, www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39047353/ncaa-proposes-rule-let-schools-athletes-enter-nil-deals.
I like this source as it offers a fair solution to student-athlete compensation because it highlights a significant shift in how compensation could be structured.
“The top schools, which according to the letter are more impacted “by collectives, the Transfer Portal and NIL,” would be allowed to create their own set of rules to help police those areas of the market for college athletes in unique ways.”
What is the role of gender equity in discussions of student-athlete compensation?
I believe that the the question of gender equity in discussions of student-athlete compensation attracts an examination of fairness and justice in sports. It encourages a critical analysis of how historical disparities in funding, opportunities, and visibility for male and female athletes shape current compensation frameworks. Not only does it raise important ethical considerations about equality and representation, raising discussions about whether existing compensation models perpetuate or challenge systemic inequalities. But also, questions a deeper understanding of how gender dynamics intersect with the broader landscape of athletic compensation, emphasizing the importance of inclusivity and equity in the evolving conversation.
Sources:
Moody, Josh. “Two Years in, Nil Is Fueling Chaos in College Athletics.” Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs, Inside Higher Ed, 7 June 2023, www.insidehighered.com/news/students/athletics/2023/06/07/two-years-nil-fueling-chaos-college-athletics.
I believe this source to be needed in my paper because it underscores that while NIL rights offer new opportunities for athletes to profit, they have also sparked challenges in areas like gender equity and fairness among schools.
“Suddenly an institution with 20 sports teams, for example, may find itself at the negotiating table with representatives from each athletic squad.” – This quote touches on the future of college athletics if there is no more money to fund other sports including womens.
“Nil Deals Lack Equity for Women College Athletes: BestColleges.” BestColleges.Com, Best Colleges, 20 Feb. 2023, www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/nil-deals-lack-equity-for-women-college-athletes/.
This article highlights the current disparity between male and female athletes in securing Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals and details how female athletes, receive fewer and less lucrative deals than their male counterparts.
“We learned from Opendorse’s 2023 report that men college athletes receive 66% of deals from NIL collectives. That means just 34% of women sports athletes are paid through college NIL deals.”
Cory, Ryan. “Can Nil Help Dissolve the Gender Inequities That Are Baked into the Fabric of the NCAA Culture?” Digital Commons @ Cortland, Suny Cortland, 27 Apr. 2022, digitalcommons.cortland.edu/slides/20/.
This article addresses gender equity in NIL discussions recognizing disparities and actively creating more inclusive opportunities for female athletes including ensuring equal access to sponsorships and addressing media biases that often undervalue women’s sports.
“The impact that NIL will bring to compensation between male and female student-athletes can compare to the impact that Title IX brought to female sports participation rates in 1972”
Consider whether NIL represents a fair solution to compensation, examining this question along several dimensions—including gender.
The introduction of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights as a solution to student-athlete compensation raises critical questions of justice, autonomy, and equity, challenging traditional views of amateurism in sports. By allowing athletes to profit from their personal brands, NIL rights highlight the ethical tension between individual athletes’ rights to benefit from their identities and the commercial interests of athletic programs, while also prompting a deeper examination of how these opportunities may perpetuate or alleviate disparities across gender, sport, and background.
Objection 1: The NIL system is equitable because it compensates athletes according to their market valuation, which fairly reflects demand for their personal brands.A critic could argue that the market-driven nature of NIL compensation is inherently fair because it allows athletes to earn what they are “worth” based on consumer interest, visibility, and social media following. This objection implies that athletes who bring more revenue or attention to the institution deserve a higher level of compensation, suggesting that NIL rights already align with fairness principles. However, this objection fails because it overlooks how market value itself is influenced by systemic disparities, such as those in gender, race, and the prominence of certain sports that may privilege some athletes while disadvantaging others. Although these athletes may seem fairly compensated in a pure market sense, they are actually rewarded based on factors beyond their control, potentially reinforcing inequities rather than alleviating them. A reasonable person might raise this objection, seeing meritocracy in market valuation, but this perspective is mistaken because it disregards the structural imbalances that shape the market and impact opportunities unevenly.
Objection 2: NIL rights do not challenge amateurism, as they allow athletes to profit outside direct team activities and don’t interfere with the institution’s primary mission of education.A critic might contend that NIL deals occur independently of an athlete’s performance on the field or their relationship with the school, meaning the traditional view of amateurism, where athletes are students first and competitors second, remains intact. This objection suggests that NIL rights merely supplement, rather than compromise, the amateur model. However, this argument falls short because NIL inherently commercializes aspects of student life and sport that were once non-commercial. By allowing athletes to profit from their image, amateurism is redefined, placing emphasis on financial gain and self-promotion, which can conflict with the academic mission. The objection could be tempting because NIL deals appear to occur in a domain outside direct sports competition, but it ultimately fails to acknowledge how NIL encourages a professional mindset, reshaping student-athletes’ experiences and responsibilities in ways that align with professionalism rather than amateurism.