Much has changed since college athletes first gained the right to earn compensation in 2021. A select few have achieved significant wealth through their talent and marketability. The vast majority, however, have earned far more modest additional income — if any at all.

Yet one thing has remained constant: critics of college students monetizing their name, image, and likeness (NIL) continue to argue that athlete compensation has destroyed the supposed purity of college sports. The NCAA has a long track record of opposing college athletes profiting from their own intellectual property. Even President Donald Trump has weighed in, suggesting that current NIL policies "could cause serious damage to college athletics" and issuing two executive orders during his second term aimed at "saving" college sports.

However, as a professor of sport management who has been studying NIL policies since their implementation in 2021, I believe there are numerous misconceptions about how these policies actually work. Drawing on two studies — one published in 2023 and another in 2025 — I aim to clarify several key points about a system that has quickly become part of the broader business of college athletics.

A Brief History of NIL

On July 1, 2021, the NCAA formally permitted college athletes to earn income through their name, image, and likeness. This landmark policy reversal ended the NCAA's longstanding position that such agreements jeopardized athletes' eligibility.

The shift, however, was far from sudden. More than 30 states had already passed legislation allowing college athletes to monetize their name, image, and likeness, and several court rulings had sided with athletes on the issue.

Almost immediately, athletes began signing marketing deals with a diverse array of businesses. Jackson State defensive end Antwan Owens secured a deal with 3 Kings Grooming, while Auburn quarterback Bo Nix partnered with Milo's sweet tea. Athletes who had cultivated substantial social media followings — such as sisters Haley and Hanna Cavinder — quickly attracted endorsement interest and reached agreements with brands like Boost Mobile and Six Star Pro Nutrition.

NIL collectives, which are nonprofit groups typically funded and operated by boosters, alumni, or fans, soon emerged to facilitate sponsorship payments for school athletes. This effectively created an unregulated pay-for-play system in which athletes received compensation for their talent.

A Narrow Window to Earn

One reason college athletes may deserve to capitalize on their abilities while still in school is that their earning window is likely to be extremely narrow.

For decades, athletes have been reminded that they will be "going pro in something other than sports" — meaning their primary adult income will almost certainly not come from the NFL or NBA. The NCAA, its member universities, coaches, and athletic administrators have accurately pointed out that the probability of an NCAA athlete even competing at the professional level — let alone sustaining a long, lucrative career — is quite low, under 1% in many sports.

Given this reality, it is not unreasonable for college athletes to seek to maximize their earnings from their athletic abilities during this brief period. After all, many adults, including college coaches and athletic administrators, pursue careers specifically to maximize their earning potential. It would be irrational, in my view, to expect college athletes and their families to operate under a different standard.

Another overlooked truth is that NCAA Division I athletics have grown increasingly commercialized over decades, with top officials, athletic directors, and coaches commanding high six-, seven-, or even eight-figure salaries. The notable exceptions have been the athletes themselves — who, until 2021, received little more than scholarships, despite the fact that their talent and labor sit at the very center of the entire enterprise.

Benefits Beyond Money

The most obvious change for athletes under the new system is the ability to earn income. But that is not the only benefit.

In my most recent study, several co-authors and I found that athletic department staff across the country held a positive view of NIL policies. They reported that college athletes who engage in NIL deals appear to be maturing more quickly, behaving more responsibly, and frequently partnering with charities to support worthy causes. With earning opportunities now available, today's college athletes seem more aware that organizations are more likely to partner with them if they consistently demonstrate reliable and mature behavior.

Athletes have also gained the ability to pursue skills and ventures that were previously off-limits — such as launching and marketing their own small businesses while competing, or gaining hands-on experience with taxes and other financial matters.

Although administrators in our study expressed some concerns about potential negative outcomes from NIL opportunities — such as pressure to perform or unmet expectations — they reported having seen no evidence of such harms materializing.

Our study also underscored how economic well-being influences other dimensions of a person's overall well-being, including mental, emotional, and social health. If schools and coaches genuinely care about their athletes' overall well-being, providing avenues to earn money can play an important role.

Even modest financial gains — a few hundred or a few thousand dollars from branding opportunities — can make a meaningful difference for a young person or their family, especially in a landscape where the most lucrative opportunities tend to be concentrated among a relatively small number of highly visible athletes.

A Paternalistic Mindset

In my view, the persistent anxiety over paying student-athletes stems from a historically entrenched paternalistic culture in college sports. For instance, despite the fact that most college athletes are 18 to 23 years old and legally adults, broadcasters, coaches, and others routinely refer to them as "kids." A 2025 study analyzing nearly 100 Division I policies found that teams actively sought to control athletes and restrict their self-determination — including dictating their physical appearance and regulating when and how they could interact with family and friends.

Ultimately, these athletes are not children. They are adults, the vast majority of whom have a very limited window to earn money from their athletic talent and hard work. While the NIL system — along with other college athletics policies — could certainly be improved, athletes are benefiting in numerous ways beyond the obvious financial gains, and the debate now centers less on whether NIL should exist than on how institutions manage it within an increasingly commercialized model.

If athletes are indeed the central stakeholders of college athletics, and if their well-being is the enterprise's foremost priority, then I believe the opportunity to capitalize on name, image, and likeness should not merely be permanently accepted — it should be genuinely celebrated.

Brennan Berg, Professor of Sport Management, University of Mississippi

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com.