As NIL grows, college programs adjust to new realities in recruiting and roster management.
As the old saying goes, money makes the world go round. In college athletics It's a multi-billion-dollar business that creates thousands of jobs and entertains millions of fans. With all the money flowing around, one group largely legally excluded from that economy was the athletes themselves.
NIL didn’t invent that reality. It disrupted the illusion that sustained it.
By allowing athletes to profit from their own name, image and likeness, college sports didn’t suddenly turn professional. It exposed a system that had already been operating that way for decades. What followed wasn’t a clean transition, but a landscape still defining its boundaries, unsettled, uneven, and increasingly difficult to manage.
The Business Already Existed
College sports, particularly football and basketball, have long been massive revenue engines. In many cases, those two sports alone fund entire athletic departments. Add in lucrative television deals, escalating coaching salaries, and constant facility upgrades, and it becomes clear just how much money is generated and spent around athletes who are barely out of high school.
NIL rules initially allowed college athletes to earn money from endorsements, appearances, and personal branding, separate from direct institutional payments. The NCAA has since moved toward permitting schools to distribute up to roughly $20 million annually in revenue sharing with athletes, underscoring how quickly the model is evolving. What NIL has changed most, however, isn’t the incentive structure of college sports, but its visibility. Money, leverage, and competitive advantage shaped decisions long before NIL existed. The difference now is that those forces are openly acknowledged rather than quietly managed.
How the Status Quo Fell
The path to NIL was driven by years of legal pressure. Lawsuits dating back decades challenged the NCAA’s restrictions on athlete compensation, most notably the Ed O’Bannon case, which cracked the foundation of amateurism. That pressure culminated when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the NCAA in the Alston case, signaling that the existing model was no longer legally defensible.
Since then, the NCAA has been reacting rather than leading. With states passing different NIL laws and enforcement lacking uniformity, athletic directors have been left navigating a patchwork system. Even the proposed $20 million revenue-sharing cap is already being questioned, with some schools arguing it was exhausted almost immediately. The result is a landscape many administrators privately, and sometimes publicly, describe as chaotic. College athletics is operating in real time, with rules still being written.
What NIL is Revealing
One of the most telling parts of the NIL conversation isn’t what’s new, but what’s being openly acknowledged. Former Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel spoke candidly on a podcast about the reality of “bag men” during his playing days, describing a system where money circulated quietly at nearly every national title contender.
"It’s the way the business worked back then, There was a bag man. There was a bag man at LSU. There was a bag man at ‘Bama. There was a bag man at every school around the country if you were competing for a national title. It is what it was, and it was always that way until we’re into the NIL portion of everything now, the way it should be."
Manziel’s point wasn’t about corruption - it was about honesty. NIL didn’t create a market. It acknowledged one that already existed.
That shift has changed the language of college sports. Teams now speak in terms of “general managers,” players don’t simply return, they “sign deals.” Combined with an unregulated transfer portal, every offseason now resembles free agency. Roster stability is harder to maintain, particularly for Group of Five programs, where success often leads to immediate talent loss.
Athletes in the Middle
None of this discussion matters without acknowledging the athletes themselves. College players are expected to maintain demanding schedules, protect their health, succeed academically, and perform on national stages, often under pressures most adults never experience. For many, the earning window is short. Careers last four or five years at most, with no guarantee of professional opportunities beyond that.
This reality is especially significant for women’s sports, where professional leagues often pay far less than what some college NIL opportunities can provide. For many athletes, college represents their best, and sometimes only, chance to capitalize on their value.
NIL may not have clear answers yet, but it has clarified one thing: college athletics is changing. Fans may dislike seeing players leave for better opportunities, and criticism of highly compensated stars has intensified. Still, rivalries remain, tailgates still fill parking lots, and game day still matters. What’s increasingly difficult to deny is that the current system was unsustainable, and stability is still a long way off.
Contact/Follow us @AggiesWire on X and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Texas A&M news, notes, and opinions. Follow Jarrett Johnson on X: @whosnextsports1.
This article originally appeared on Aggies Wire: NIL money talks… but is it killing college athletics?
Category: General Sports
