NIL Without a Referee

When Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) was unleashed on college athletics, it was framed as long-overdue justice for athletes. And that part was right. Players finally gained the ability to earn from the value they create. The problem is that the NCAA, once again, mistook permission for policy—and then largely walked away.

Today’s NIL landscape is less a system than a marketplace without rules. The NCAA has failed to meaningfully monitor, regulate, or enforce standards around NIL deals, leaving states, conferences, schools, collectives, and athletes to operate in a gray zone that grows darker by the week. What was meant to empower athletes has, in many cases, created chaos and resentment across locker rooms and coaching offices.

One of the most glaring issues is accountability—or the complete lack of it. In the professional world, compensation is tied to performance, effort, and availability. Contracts include incentives, benchmarks, and consequences. In college athletics, however, an athlete can receive a six- or seven-figure NIL deal and face no penalty for underperformance, lack of engagement, or even walking away from a program shortly thereafter. Schools are accused of tampering with players from other programs. Coaches still get fired for losing. Athletes, in many cases, get paid regardless.

It’s no surprise that many coaches quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) argue that if NIL compensation resembles professional pay, there should be professional expectations. They want the ability to hold athletes accountable—to reduce roles, void agreements, or move on from players who fail to meet agreed-upon standards. This isn’t about punishment; it’s about alignment. To many schools have made bad decisions regarding limited NIL funds. Right now, responsibility flows in one direction, while money flows in the other.

The NCAA’s reluctance to step in has also harmed donors and collectives. Many entered NIL with good intentions—supporting athletes and programs they love—only to discover a system with little transparency and few guardrails. Trust erodes quickly when expectations aren’t met and no one has authority to fix the problem.

So what does a functional NIL world look like five years from now?

In a perfect future, NIL is standardized, transparent, and contractual. Deals are disclosed through a national clearinghouse. Compensation is tied to clearly defined deliverables—appearances, engagement, performance benchmarks, and academic standing. Athletes are protected by representation and education, ensuring they understand obligations and long-term financial implications.

Coaches have limited but real tools for accountability, operating within collectively bargained rules that prevent abuse while allowing roster management. Administrators oversee compliance with clear NCAA-endorsed guidelines rather than pretending NIL isn’t their problem. Donors give with confidence, knowing expectations are realistic and enforceable.

Most importantly, athletes still win. They earn real money, build brands, and gain professional skills—without being set up to fail by a system that confuses freedom with neglect.

NIL was necessary. But without enforcement, it’s unsustainable. College athletics doesn’t need to turn back the clock—it needs to grow up and finally act like the enterprise it has already become.