The NCAA logo is plastered all over televisions this month as millions tune in to March Madness. Thanks to the talent that the players bring to the court, and all of the buzzer beaters and upsets (I’m looking at you St. Peter’s Peacocks!), March Madness is one of the year’s greatest celebrations of college athletics. But if we take a step back from the fun, it’s clear that the NCAA has become increasingly irrelevant since its failure to lead on creating smart and clear Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) rules.
Last June, the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA had violated antitrust laws by blocking college athletes from making money on their NIL rights. It had been obvious for years that changes were needed on NIL, yet the NCAA punted in the hopes that Congress would step in. If the NCAA couldn’t do something as critical as devise NIL regulations, arguably the single most consequential trend in college sports in decades, what purpose does it serve?
This is an existential issue, and it’s the reason why the NCAA is now scrambling for renewed relevance by conducting a “review” of recruiting rules, the involvement of boosters in NIL arrangements, and the role of schools in helping to set up deals for players. According to reporting by ESPN, the NCAA is investigating pay-for-play and recruiting inducements, which they worry have sprouted up in the aftermath of the NIL change. The initial findings will be reported by April. It all feels a bit desperate and like an action that is too little, too late.
Schools like BYU and Georgia Tech have already helped set up NIL deals for their teams, and these deals have been—at least in some cases—life-changing for the student athletes. The money being generated by NIL deals, sometimes tied to boosters who want to see their alma mater win, is always going to be a consideration for any high school player deciding where to go to college, whether the NCAA likes it or not. And if that’s the case, does the idea that schools and coaches won’t talk about the types of deals that their athletes are receiving seem credible to anyone?
Imagine a coach telling a prospective NBA or NFL player that they aren’t allowed to discuss their potential to earn money from endorsements; they’d be laughed out of the room! Even if we believe that NIL isn’t being discussed with recruits, it is definitely part of the equation for collegiate athletes who put themselves on the transfer portal. For college athletes who either are stars and could earn huge sums of money, or who come from lower-income backgrounds and need extra financial support, NIL deals are going to be a major consideration for them, as they should be.
By the same token, any high school athlete being approached by recruiters would be remiss to not inquire about the types of NIL deals students get at any given school. Yet, the rules right now are a patchwork and vary from state to state, leaving some schools able to directly involve themselves in brokering deals and others without that tool. A system in which schools in some states can help broker deals, while colleges in other states cannot, has no hope of being fair and balanced.
The NCAA seems to be deeply concerned that NIL will (or already has) generated pay-for-play arrangements. But why is this rule sacred in an era in which NIL exists? If athletes are being paid by NIL deals, and at least some schools can help broker those deals (or are essentially doing this by using loopholes), why not treat student athletes with the same basic level of respect as any other adult human being? Let them be paid to play, and then require them to sign contracts with schools, rather than going on the transfer portal after freshman year in search of a better deal. Naturally, student athletes will need smart, dedicated representatives to ensure they’re getting a fair shake.
College football and basketball generate tens of millions of dollars, and endorsement deals shouldn’t be treated like something untoward or suspect. NIL is only a problem when there aren’t clear rules, when what rules that do exist are riddled with loopholes, or when a patchwork of rules creates unfair advantages for some schools or allows the exploitation of players.
The reality is that many student athletes are simply world class athletes. Some of them may go on to the pros. Others may finish out their careers in college. Either way, their prowess helps their schools generate enormous sums of money, and NIL means they can now share in that. There must be an NIL system that is thoughtful, organized, consistent and disciplined, just as exists in every other sports league. And right now, the NCAA isn’t providing this. There is a real question about how much more patience the Power Five conferences have with the NCAA’s failure to lead.
My leadership principles rest on the concept of “No Rules, One Standard.” What does that mean? It means that you know what your standards are, and it means everyone is clear about their shared objective. Yes, maybe in this case, rules are the only way to articulate and ultimately enforce these measures. However, the bigger question than what the rules should be is what standard the NCAA is aiming to create? And how can everyone involved benefit?
