The demise of team…NIL- “NOTHING INSTANT LASTS” – Part 2
There are solid arguments for compensating college student-athletes when billions of dollars in revenue are being collected on merchandise alone. Public opinion has shifted somewhat over the years in light of this fact, where most are supportive of athletes receiving compensation beyond their scholarship. Today, athletes are receiving multimillion dollar NIL (Name, Image and Likeness) deals before ever setting foot in the competitive arena. That intuitively seems problematic. As someone in mental strength coaching and mental health, I was flooded with questions that I assumed were well-thought-out and vetted.
The idea of paying college athletes is not new. It is a proposition that was raised as early as the 1950s as college sports started growing in popularity. Walter Byers, the first executive director of the NCAA, is credited with coining the term “student-athlete” as a strategy to avoid potential workman’s compensation claims (1). The NCAA has danced around definitions and straddled the lines of ethics for decades. Considering that this is not a new debate, one would assume that caveats and potential challenges inherent in structuring a pay for play framework, would’ve been amply anticipated. One might ask…
- With consideration of the developmental age and common characteristics of most college students, and on the behalf of the student-athletes (often no more than 18 years old); what guardrails have been implemented for their protection from friends, family, and themselves?
- Have student-athletes been adequately prepared for the consequences they are about to face as recipients of such large sums of money?
- Have schools created support for the student-athletes to manage the inherent pressure that comes with accepting an NIL deal?
- Have student-athletes received coaching on handling the trolls of social media who feel entitled to ruthlessly attack athletes (who are typically between ages 18-22) for underperforming after accepting NIL deals? And what support is in place to help them manage the impact of being the recipients of such attacks?
And what about the universities and the sports teams? In their rush to make the deal of the decade with the most sought-after talent, they have lost sight of 2 critical elements of successful college sports programs: Sustainability and the team cohesion that comes from recruiting more than just a chess piece. Legendary Alabama coach, Nick Saban, talked about the necessity of congruency of standards among team members. There is some profound truth in this. Teams that win are teams where everyone from the top down is rowing in the same direction. I imagine it like a giant 12-person row boat and each person is given a different size and shaped ore and rowing at random, in a way that suits them. This boat isn’t going anywhere.
The recent ruling in “House vs NCAA, March 2025” essentially favors the athletes awarding 2.8 billion dollars in back pay from 2014, revenue sharing, and the implementation of an oversight structure to ensure fair market value for NIL deals. In addition, they continue to hold that an athlete can transfer to another athletic program as many times and play immediately without penalty. Just as a point of contrast, many high school sports programs prohibit athletes from playing at another high school their transfer year or the athlete must demonstrate hardship to not lose eligibility. Though I imagine that landscape may change, as well.
On the surface, the ruling would seem this is a win-win for athletes and universities alike. The athletes get, in many cases, huge sums of money without restrictions, and hungry, revenue generating sports, get star athletes even if it is for just a season. However, I have yet to hear anyone discuss some of the unintended consequences that coincide with the “highest bidder” model; consequences that impact the universities and the student-athletes. It is no longer unprecedented that some athletes have played for as many as 4 schools in 4 years, a recent example being Tre White. This team hopping is eerily analogous to our declining attention spans in this era…SQUIRREL…shiny object…pop-up-add… I digress. Let’s be clear, it is not the fault of the athlete and there isn’t any wrongdoing per se. That doesn’t mean, however that no harm is being done. When we fail to even ask basic questions, alluded to above, or consider in advance, how we might support these athletes as they dive head-first into uncharted waters, aren’t we risking their wellbeing and perhaps their mental health? Not everything is fixable with dollar signs and decimal points.
Perhaps I’m overstating concerns that are, behind some closed doors, being addressed. It seems I am stating what has become glaringly obvious in the last several months. Much like the NBA (in my opinion), the pendulum has swung fully and completely in the opposite direction, from team/league centric to player driven. Where the universities had operated solely in their own interest for decades, now the apparent sole focus is on appealing to and appeasing the athlete (specifically the most talented athlete). It is true that the Teams/League (like university sports programs) would not exist without the athletes, but I would be remiss if I didn’t say the livelihood of the athletes would NOT exist without the Teams/League and the university sports programs, who provide the platform and revenue stream.
Make no mistake, the universities still see this as a win in the short term for themselves by attracting the best talent with the allure of dollar signs. However, the actual price tag may be much higher than anticipated when teams formed are not sustainable or cohesive. Some argue the product of the NBA has declined in recent years for a whole host of reasons some being marquee players opting to sit out games at their discretion, front offices being hamstrung by excessive contracts and player exceptions, and star players colluding to play with one another in certain locations. Time will tell if that is the direction college sports is headed.
In the meantime, it seems incumbent upon the us in the mental fitness/health field and the NCAA to consider the climate, the trajectory, and the potential outcomes of NIL and the transfer portal, as they are currently structured. Providing, at a minimum, coaching support around the mental fitness of their athletes, and general support and education on handling the pressures of essentially being a professional athlete, ready or not. Providing education of health and safety practices with respect to social media is critical in a climate of increasingly popular sports betting where stakes are high and underperforming student-athletes easily become the targets of disgruntled betting enthusiasts. Universities need to shift their focus to at least acknowledge the divergence of value they place on athletes. Up to now, the primary attention has been ONLY on what the athlete does and not who the athlete is. There is no attention paid to what tools this athlete is armed with or the conditions of their lives that might present unique challenges they are not equipped to navigate. We need to do better for our college student-athletes or I fear we will see future mental health crises in this population.
Citations:
1. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/history-behind-debate-paying-ncaa-athletes/
