Two schools can both offer $1.5M, but the terms behind those dollars can be very different—and those terms determine how much additional NIL money an athlete can earn.
Example A — “Open-Market” Structure (School 1)
Example B would be JMI Sports/Kentucky
Example A would be UNC, Kansas, Louisville, Indiana, Gonzaga, UCLA.
I would sign with Example A.
I would never sign with Example B.
This is what I mean by "Terms and Conditions". For me, that is extremely specific and obvious . I guess it's not as widely understood as I would have thought.
Example A — “Open-Market” Structure (School 1)
- Offer: $1.5M from a mix of athletic department support, collectives, or outside partners.
- Few strings attached: Standard conduct clauses (e.g., no alcohol/cannabis/gambling), and possibly limits on school marks usage.
- Athlete retains NIL freedom: Can sign separate deals with outside brands as long as university obligations are met.
- Offer: $1.5M administered by a university-contracted rights holder (e.g., a multimedia-rights partner).
- Tighter controls: Terms may restrict which brands the athlete can work with (e.g., must fit within the partner’s portfolio), and may require approvals to use school marks, facilities, or media channels.
- Practical effect: Fewer outside deals and slower approvals, which can cap total NIL earnings during enrollment.
Example B would be JMI Sports/Kentucky
Example A would be UNC, Kansas, Louisville, Indiana, Gonzaga, UCLA.
I would sign with Example A.
I would never sign with Example B.
This is what I mean by "Terms and Conditions". For me, that is extremely specific and obvious . I guess it's not as widely understood as I would have thought.
Comment