We have often heard that athletes are the true protagonists of sport. This idea becomes even more compelling when we consider that fans pay for a ticket to watch a specific player, not necessarily an executive, director, or referee.
This has been a constant in global sport. Elements such as ticket sales, sponsorships, broadcasting rights, and digital platforms have driven sustained growth in the sports industry, turning it into one of the most important worldwide in terms of revenue generation.
This growth has not bypassed college sports in the United States. The college sports industry currently generates approximately 11.8 billion dollars per year, with a distribution that has historically favored the most powerful universities and conferences, especially when it comes to broadcasting rights. Conferences like the SEC and the Big Ten concentrate a significant share of this revenue thanks to their multi-million dollar media deals.
With such striking numbers, one might assume that college athletes were also benefiting economically in a meaningful way. However, for decades that was not the case. That reality began to change with the arrival of NIL, which stands for Name, Image and Likeness.
What is NIL?
John Wolohan, in his book Law for Recreation and Sport Managers, defines NIL as the legal right an individual has to control and generate income from their name, image, and likeness.
However, reaching this modern concept required a series of legal processes that transformed the traditional model of college sports.
One of the first relevant precedents was the case of Ed O'Bannon against the NCAA. The former UCLA basketball player argued that the organization unfairly restricted athletes' ability to benefit economically from the use of their image in television broadcasts and video games. Although the court decision did not immediately create NIL, it did open the door to future reforms.
Later, the Alston vs. NCAA case challenged the limitations the NCAA imposed on certain education-related benefits for athletes. The Supreme Court's 2021 ruling was a significant blow to the traditional amateurism model defended by the NCAA.
As a result of these legal and regulatory pressures, in July 2021 the NCAA implemented an interim policy that, for the first time, allowed college athletes to earn income from commercial deals tied to their name, image, and likeness. In other words, they could sign sponsorship contracts and generate income with third parties without losing their athletic eligibility.
The first major beneficiaries of NIL
The new NIL era quickly produced emblematic cases.
Among the most benefited athletes are names like Arch Manning, Bronny James, Livvy Dunne, and Cooper Flagg, who reached market valuations of more than four million dollars during their college years. In the cases of Manning and James, estimates exceeded six million dollars.
Much of this income was driven by commercial deals, sponsors, and a significant social media presence, rather than by athletic performance itself.
It is important to note, however, that these funds did not come directly from the universities, but from brands, companies, sponsors, NIL collectives, and other private entities interested in associating themselves with the athletes' image.
The arrival of Revenue Sharing
The next major change arrived on July 1, 2025, after the approval of the settlement stemming from the House vs. NCAA case.
From that point on, Division I universities that chose to participate in the new model could directly share a portion of their revenue with athletes through the so-called revenue sharing.
For the 2025-2026 period, the initial cap was set at approximately 20.5 million dollars per university per year.
This new mechanism significantly changed the perception that only the institutions benefited economically from college sports. Although athletes still do not receive percentages comparable to those seen in professional leagues such as the NBA, NFL, or MLB, the combination of NIL, revenue sharing, athletic scholarships, academic benefits, and additional support has created a much more favorable ecosystem for student-athletes.
In programs whose athletic departments generate close to 200 million dollars per year, the total compensation directed to athletes is beginning to represent an increasingly significant share of the budget, moving in some respects closer to a flexible salary cap model.
NIL and Revenue Sharing in college soccer
Despite these changes, the reality of college soccer is very different from that of football or basketball.
Because most of the revenue in college sports continues to be generated by these two disciplines, the distribution of resources to sports such as baseball, softball, volleyball, and soccer remains considerably smaller.
Both in NIL and in revenue sharing, soccer represents a small fraction of the total resources distributed within athletic departments.
Some notable cases have emerged primarily in women's soccer. One of the best-known examples is Lexi Missimo, a former University of Texas player who secured NIL deals valued in six figures. However, these situations remain exceptions and do not reflect the reality of most college soccer players.
For most soccer athletes, the economic benefits continue to be tied mainly to athletic scholarships, cost of attendance, academic support, and other institutional benefits. Likewise, many universities still allocate a limited or even zero share of their revenue sharing programs to this sport.
A transformation that is just beginning
Although there is still a long way to go to reach distribution models similar to those of the major professional leagues, the implementation of NIL and revenue sharing represents the most important economic shift in the modern history of American college sports.
What began as a discussion about athletes' image rights has evolved into a structural transformation that redefines the relationship between universities, athletes, and the sports industry. The full impact of these changes is yet to be seen, but it is clear that today's college sports landscape is very different from the one we had just five years ago.
