Rumors surrounding NIL collective deals have become an annual tradition in the world of college sports.
Despite the flood of sensational headlines, they often report tremendously inflated numbers, as mentioned by four industry experts involved in collectives and working with athletes.
Rumors of massive NIL deals are the new norm in college sports — but insiders warn not to believe everything you hear.
“On the record: It’s absolute bulls—."@achristovichh explores a new era of sports gossip ⬇️
— Front Office Sports (@FOS) December 24, 2023
“You can say whatever you want, because no one knows … no one talks numbers,” one Power 5 collective operator tells Front Office Sports. “Even our athletes lie about what they make to other athletes on the team.”
Taking a recent example, it was reported that Marvin Harrison Jr., the Ohio State receiver, was offered around $20 million to convince him not to declare for the NFL draft.
However, these figures are regularly dismissed by experts in the field. Industry experts strongly believe that the proposed figures are largely exaggerated.
Jason Belzer, the head of Student Athlete NIL, dismisses these rumors as deceptive. He suggests such figures significantly misrepresent the collective market.
Despite similar opinions across industry professionals, sensational figures continue to circulate, often making headlines.
Along the same vein, Nebraska’s head coach, Matt Rhule, claimed that a competent quarterback would cost between $1 and $2 million in the portal.
This statement, however, leaves a false impression of the real prices in most of the Power 5 schools, where a sizable majority are unable to match such numbers.
Concurrent with general consensus, top-tier athletes earn around seven figures, but this is largely due to their collective earnings in conjunction with other NIL contracts.
It is clear that individual earnings depend on a myriad of factors, and collective contracts are only one piece of the puzzle.
The NIL deals industry suffers from a severe lack of transparency, largely because NIL deals are not considered player salaries.
For a more lucid understanding and functioning of the market, it’s critical that there is a push toward transparency.
NCAA President Charlie Baker, frustrated coaches, and several other stakeholders have called for a federal law that requires disclosure of NIL deal values.
The solution could lie in collective bargaining. By entering collective bargaining agreements with athletes, NCAA could establish more transparent and standardized procedures.
This could also potentially lead to a revenue-sharing or salary agreement. However, it’s also important to note that NCAA has been vehemently against athlete unionization, collective bargaining, or employee status.
