When Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rules officially changed in 2021, it was framed as a long-overdue correction to a system that had previously barred college athletes from earning compensation for their own names and likenesses. Under the updated policy, student-athletes were finally allowed to profit from endorsements, social media promotions, and sponsorships while still pursuing their education. Many legal analysts say that NIL has “fundamentally changed the landscape of college athletics”.
As NIL has matured, a more complicated picture has emerged. NIL has helped some athletes tremendously. However, it has also exposed, and in some cases widened, structural inequities in college and high school sports. Moreover, it has done very little to protect the athletes and programs that were already on the margins.
Positive in its intent, NIL gives athletes more control over their own opportunities. For the first time, they can monetize their work, their voice, and their following without violating eligibility rules. High-profile athletes in football and basketball have landed lucrative deals. Olympic-sport athletes with strong personal brands have built sustainable income streams through social media, coaching, camps, and partnerships. Platforms like Opendorse help athletes navigate contracts, connect with brands, and stay compliant in a rapidly changing landscape.
Even non-professional athletes, who bring value to their communities, have found new opportunities thanks to NIL. A distance runner coaching youth clinics, a gymnast partnering with a local business, or a swimmer offering private lessons can now be compensated legally and transparently. For many, this has meant reduced financial stress and greater control over their athletic journey.
However, NIL does not solve many of the deeper problems in the system—and it was never designed to.
The first issue is visibility. NIL rewards athletes who already have exposure, media coverage, or social reach. It further tends to favor athletes in revenue-generating sports and large conferences. Athletes in niche, non-revenue, or less-publicized sports—such as diving, gymnastics, or fencing—often struggle to access the same opportunities. This is true regardless of their talent or level of commitment. And this disparity becomes especially glaring when programs are cut entirely.
The elimination of Cal Poly’s swimming and diving program highlights this reality. The school cited financial pressures tied to the NCAA’s $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement. In addition, the rising cost of athlete compensation made the decision, in its words, “unavoidable.” While NIL may expand individual earning potential, it does not offer protection for teams like Cal Poly’s. Even the most successful individual NIL deals or brand partnerships do not protect scholarships, facilities, or coaching. And let’s face it, collegiate athletes still need a team and program to compete.
The same tension is now emerging in high school sports. As NIL-like models trickle down through state associations and collectives, younger athletes are being encouraged—sometimes pressured—to think of themselves as brands before they’ve even committed to a college or a sport long-term. While a small number benefit early, many more face unrealistic expectations about what NIL can provide. They are left navigating unclear rules and unequal access, often all on their own.
There is also the myth that NIL equals fairness. It doesn’t. NIL doesn’t address gender inequities, funding gaps, or Title IX compliance challenges. It doesn’t ensure that athletes in less-visible sports are supported. And it does not replace the responsibility of schools and governing bodies to invest in a full range of athletic programs. Like Cal Poly, schools often face having to eliminate teams or reduce support in order to balance budgets.
NIL represents progress, but is only one piece of a much larger ecosystem.
A healthy sports development system requires:
Long-term competitiveness—especially on a global stage—depends on broad participation, rather than a system dominated by high-revenue sports and programs.
Many technology platforms reflect and respond to this bias. Tools like Opendorse have helped streamline NIL deals and improve education. However, they still operate within a marketplace that rewards visibility and volume.
Ontheside takes a different approach with credibility centering on athlete stories, experiences, and community relevance. The sports content platform is a space where the value of what any athlete in any sport shares isn’t based on follower counts or audience size.
Solutions like Ontheside are working to shift the value equation. Nevertheless widespread systematic change must come from development paths that favor long-term impact over short-term revenue.
To truly serve athletes, NIL should be part of a larger conversation that includes program preservation, equitable funding, and athlete education. Otherwise, we risk celebrating individual success stories while quietly losing entire teams, communities, and competitive pipelines.
NIL changed the rules of the game. Now the challenge is making sure it doesn’t change who gets to play.