I never said it wasn't towards the bottom of the conference. It likely is. I'm saying nobody really knows everything. The real difference. How it is spread across the athletic department. If contributions were one-time lump sums to buy out a coach or build a new tennis facility.
Even the source you cited admitted as much if you cared to read the disclosures.
Why present these Estimates?
Unlike public Universities, virtually all NIL Collectives are privately controlled and have no obligation to publicly report information such as their annual fundraising and how those funds are spent.In most cases, NIL collectives are very protective of their funding, and several states have actually stepped in to shield collectives from public scrutiny. Texas passed a bill that became effective in July 2023 barring state universities from releasing NIL documents in response to freedom of information act (FOIA) requests. With this action, Texas joins other states that have restricted public access to NIL activity including Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Nebraska.
So these states have basically said ”none of your business”. But the problem with this position is that it does affect the public. State supported Universities rely on athletic booster donations to help fund their athletic programs including women’s and non-revenue sports. However the new landscape is that Schools and collectives are now competing for the same dollars – both are asking the same donors for contributions to the same cause – supporting the school’s athletic programs. So assuming donors are not going to double up, contributions to NIL collectives likely reduce contributions that historically went to the Universities. The difference is the schools used these funds as they saw best and were required to report how contributions are spent. Conversely, NIL Collectives are privately operated and are under no obligation to report either how much in funds are raised or how they are spent.
The state laws restricting public access were also intended to bar access from the NCAA to some extent. NCAA bashing is in vogue right now, but the organization does try to maintain a level fair playing field for schools to compete – for example, every FBS football program is allowed to have a maximum of 85 players under scholarship. NIL collectives are threatening to tilt this field on end – say two schools recruiting the same athlete are both offering full scholarships, but one has a supporting collective that can offer that recruit $ 100,000 per year in guaranteed “NIL” money and the other school can only offer a scholarship and the opportunity for a good education, which school do you believe will likely receive the commitment? See our page on the Quiet Part Out Loud about how the recruiting landscape has changed due to emergence of NIL collectives.
Student-Athletes do deserve legitimate NIL opportunities, but the health of intercollegiate sports is also dependent on schools playing by the same rules on the same level playing field. Sports is an integral part of the college experience. It would be a disaster if scores of schools begin to drop sports due to the funding demands and the intercollegiate athletics landscape ends up being dominated by 30 or 40 super schools essentially funded by enormous football TV contracts. Everyone loses in this scenario, especially the reduced opportunities for student-athlete not looking to get paid, but just to play for the love of the game.
So we compile and present these statistics with the objective of bringing some light to this area.
