Napa, CA – Since the landmark legislation passed in California in 2021, allowing college athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL), the financial landscape of collegiate sports has been radically transformed. While many athletes have been able to leverage their popularity for lucrative deals, others find themselves at a disadvantage, earning little despite their talents. The data reveals both a boom in earnings for some and continued inequality within college athletics, particularly along the lines of gender, sport, and school affiliation.
California became the first state to allow college athletes to profit from NIL deals in 2021, setting off a wave of similar legislative changes across the country. Athletes could now earn money from brand partnerships, social media promotions, and public appearances, allowing them to capitalize on their athletic and personal brands in ways previously prohibited.
According to public university records obtained by CalMatters, the state’s Division 1 athletes have earned millions through NIL deals. Some deals have been worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. For instance, Jaylon Tyson, a former basketball player at UC Berkeley, reportedly earned $390,000 from a group of private donors. Jordan Chiles, a gymnast at UCLA and Olympic gold medalist, earned $3,000 from Grammarly, a major tech company. These numbers illustrate the significant sums that some athletes are earning, but they also highlight a major disparity in the earnings of different athletes.
Despite the exciting potential for athletes to profit, the earnings disparities based on gender and sport remain stark. For example, while UCLA gymnasts collectively earned over $2 million in NIL deals in the past three school years, female athletes in sports like water polo earned just a fraction of that. UC Berkeley’s women’s water polo team, which won the national championship in 2023, earned only $152 in NIL compensation during the same period.
Such earnings inequality points to the uneven nature of NIL opportunities, where male athletes, particularly in high-profile sports like basketball and football, dominate the financial landscape. In contrast, female athletes, even those with significant accolades, often earn much less.
This trend is not unique to California. Nationally, the vast majority of NIL deals are skewed toward male athletes in high-revenue sports. Female athletes, despite their accomplishments, often have fewer high-paying opportunities. However, some private donors are stepping in to help fill this gap. Philanthropist Mark Kalmansohn, for example, has given over $175,000 to athletes on UCLA’s women’s teams, helping to elevate their visibility and support women’s sports. His donations highlight an ongoing effort to level the playing field, though they remain the exception rather than the rule.
While corporate brand deals are a significant source of NIL income, a large portion of the compensation comes from private donors or groups known as “collectives” and “booster clubs.” These groups pool donations from alumni and fans to support athletes, often funneling large sums of money to top-tier players in exchange for social media posts, appearances, or autographs. For example, a group of UCLA donors paid an undisclosed football player $450,000 for social media promotion. Similarly, UC Berkeley’s men’s basketball team has benefitted from more than $1.3 million in donations through its collective.
However, these private donations are often shrouded in secrecy, with little transparency regarding how funds are distributed or who receives the money. In some cases, these collectives serve as a way to keep elite athletes from transferring to other schools in search of better compensation. UC Davis, for instance, launched its own collective, Aggie Edge, to retain top athletes like men’s basketball player TY Johnson, who received $50,000 in NIL deals.
The introduction of NIL has made transfers more common as athletes seek schools that offer better financial opportunities. This trend has placed pressure on universities to provide competitive NIL packages to retain star players. At UC Davis, for instance, donors have promised lucrative deals to athletes in an effort to prevent them from transferring to more prominent programs. However, these efforts do not always succeed, with some athletes failing to find suitable NIL deals at other schools, highlighting the uncertainties that come with the new NIL landscape.
The rapid expansion of NIL deals has led to significant shifts in college sports, but these changes are just the beginning. Attorneys predict that in the coming years, more athletes could be reclassified as employees, which would allow schools to pay them directly while maintaining their status as students. This potential shift could change the way NIL deals are structured, providing athletes with even more financial opportunities.
At present, the money flowing to student-athletes is staggering. Nationally, the NIL market is expected to generate $1.65 billion in the 2024-25 academic year, with athletes from high-profile schools like Stanford and USC commanding significant deals. For example, Stanford basketball player Maxime Raynaud is estimated to earn $1.5 million in the next 12 months, while USC football player Jayden Maiava could make $603,000 in the same period.
Despite the impressive numbers, the impact of NIL deals is far from equal across all athletes. As schools, donors, and collectives continue to play a larger role in supporting athletes, the challenge will be finding a way to ensure that all athletes—regardless of gender, sport, or school—have the opportunity to profit from their talents.
As the legal landscape surrounding NIL continues to evolve, the college sports world will undoubtedly face further scrutiny and potential changes. For now, the divide between the haves and the have-nots in college athletics is clear, and the future of NIL will likely continue to reshape the way athletes and institutions interact in the years to come.