How NIL Is Rewiring College Basketball

In June of 2021, the United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling against the NCAA, marking a sea change for college athletics. The ruling stated that the NCAA's restriction on student-athletes being compensated for their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) was an unjust barrier to equal opportunity and economic growth. The House v. NCAA settlement was approved in June 2025 and allows Division I schools to share up to 20.5 million dollars in revenue with athletes each year while requiring athletes to report larger NIL deals to a centralized clearinghouse, reshaping how compensation is regulated in college sports.

Unlike the NBA, with its highly regulated framework of player compensation and endorsement control, the NCAA still operates under senseless regulations that vary by state. Agents in professional basketball must first get acquainted with the Collective Bargaining Agreement and then become licensed by the National Basketball Players Association. The same level of standard protection is not afforded to college players. NIL statutes are mostly state-regulated. Arizona has a relatively laid-back attitude, while California requires registration as an NIL agent with the state, securing a 100,000 dollar surety bond, and paying fees before contracting with athletes. In states with less restrictive systems, student-athletes are more vulnerable to predatory contracts. NIL offers an opportunity, but also illustrates the asymmetrical legal system that can govern such an opportunity.

College athletics have traditionally been built on developing student-athletes and the coaching system. Recruiting was based on a program's culture, reputation, and the head coach's philosophy. NIL changed the dynamic because players can now earn a lot of money before becoming pro. More student-athletes are choosing to stay at college longer instead of entering the NBA or NFL. They're choosing schools that prepare them to make the jump to the next level, not necessarily schools with the most brand recognition.

Cooper Flagg is already the most glaring example. During his season with Duke, he acquired around 28 million dollars in NIL earnings through contracts with Fanatics and New Balance. After announcing himself for the draft, he was drafted first overall by the Dallas Mavericks and later signed a four-year rookie contract of around 62.7 million dollars with team options in the final two years and the first two years guaranteed in full. If his career path continues, he will be in a position for a next supermax extension that might be over 350 million dollars.

Tahaad Pettiford is the other side of the NIL coin. He performed well enough at the NBA Draft Combine to be worth drafting as a late first or early second round pick, but he opted not to go into the draft. Without NIL, a player like him would have entered the draft and become financially set as soon as he signed a contract. NIL flipped that around. Pettiford can remain at Auburn, work on his game, and earn a high six-figure income. Some other schools attempted to lure him away with more lucrative NIL deals, reports said, but he chose to stay because of Auburn's model of development and his role next season.

The same mentality guided Cooper Flagg’s college decision. At Duke, he is being developed by Jon Scheyer, who played under Coach Krzyzewski and won the 2010 national championship as a player before later becoming the associate head coach and then head coach of the program. Because Flagg already knew he would be financially secure through NIL wherever he enrolled, his top priority shifted toward basketball development over marketing or exposure. NIL gave him the ability to choose a school based on growth, not selling.

NIL has changed how top recruits make decisions by removing the financial tradeoff between schools. For players who know they will earn NIL money no matter where they go, coaching and player development now matter more. These athletes choose programs based on which staff can best prepare them for the NBA, while others still chase short-term NIL payouts without considering long-term growth. Players who do not choose a system that fits their style and development path are more likely to plateau before reaching the pros.

As the NIL landscape continues to evolve, the NCAA will eventually require a more comprehensive and regulated framework that protects student-athletes. NIL has opened the door for college athletes to monetize their talents instantly, but it has also brought with it a new level of responsibility. Athletes who view NIL as a means to develop their skill set while building their brand, rather than as a quick way to make money, are the ones most likely to benefit in the long run.