What is REAL NIL?

 

 

I recently came across an argument claiming that revenue sharing and NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) are the same. I want to thank ​Braly Keller​ and ​Opendorse​ for sharing their thoughts in their fabulous newsletter, ​NIL Blitz​, which I read every week. While I respect different opinions, it’s important to distinguish between these two concepts to ensure that we all clearly understand what REAL NIL is and what it is not.

Let’s break it down: NIL is about athletes capitalizing on their brands—endorsements, social media influence, and merchandise sales. It’s athlete-driven, meaning the compensation directly ties back to the individual athlete’s marketability. Conversely, revenue sharing involves splitting the pie from broader sources, like TV deals, ticket sales, and other revenue streams not directly tied to the athlete’s brand. Typically, these payments are made irrespective of the athlete’s brand and solely based on their athletic performance. Most importantly, collective payments are almost exclusively tied to performance or potential performance. That is pay-for-play, not NIL.

Now let’s consider the “benefits pool” (or revenue sharing) outlined in the proposed settlement terms: We must acknowledge that Alston payments and scholarships have never been considered traditional NIL. These are institutional benefits that don’t stem from an athlete’s marketability. When discussing revenue sharing, we’re talking about the substantial $15M+ that will flow from direct NIL agreements and other benefits—benefits that, quite frankly, resemble what many collectives are already securing for athletes. I am fighting for the 98% who need to create REAL NIL value.

But here’s the crux: It’s crucial to clarify that revenue sharing is not the same as traditional NIL and should not be misrepresented. This contributes to the confusion surrounding the NIL industry. It’s important to understand that although it coincided, NIL did not directly cause the transfer portal, collective organization, or conference realignment. This distinction is significant as it impacts how we view athlete compensation and discourages many athletes from exploring the potential opportunities of NIL.

In the end, are we quibbling over semantics? Perhaps. But it’s important to recognize that this influx of NIL dollars is transforming the landscape, with projections exceeding $2.5B in market spend by next year.Buckle up—NIL is evolving, but let’s call it what it is.

Disagree? Let’s discuss. I’m curious to hear other perspectives on this!