Nigel Hayes wanted to capitalize on the national attention he was receiving as a star member of a Wisconsin basketball team bound for back-to-back Final Four appearances.
He hoped to put his business school learnings to use by starting a clothing brand. Product promotion at the peak of his fame would be straightforward considering the fanfare even his mild postgame comments received. If successful, he figured the startup could provide long-term earnings beyond the hardwood.
Conversations with an academic advisor, however, made it clear his plan would not be permitted under NCAA rules that barred players from profiting off their name, image and likeness. What would be allowed for non-athletes at Wisconsin was off limits to him.
That stung. It still does.
So while Hayes is pleased to hear about a recently proposed NCAA rule set for January vote that would finally permit student-athletes seek sponsorships and business opportunities — a significant change for an organization that’s long held its ground against player compensation — he remains mindful of all of those innovative minds who, like him, were kept from advancing their business ambitions while in school. He’s still wary of a system he views as built to take financial advantage of its best players.
“Given the popularity I had and my team had, whatever I decided to do would have sold like hotcakes,” Hayes told Sporting News. “It's good now though that the opportunity (will be) there, but I know for sure that if it would have been something I was allowed to do, the sky would have definitely been the limit with that.”
There’s tangible evidence to back Hayes' assertion. During his 2015 tournament run with the Badgers, the University Bookstore (which is privately owned) briefly listed for sale a T-shirt inspired by iconic quotes he gave to a stenographer after a first-round victory over Coastal Carolina. The item sold out before the school could jump in to shut it down.
Hayes, long outspoken about student-athlete rights, could only laugh at the symbol of inequity within college sports.
“I didn’t see a penny from it,” Hayes said. “I almost didn’t even get a shirt. Shout out to a wonderful Badger fan who got the shirt and sent it to my mom so I could have one.”
MORE: An explanation of NIL and college athletics
Now three years removed from his last game at Wisconsin, where he won 115 games and scored 1,857 points, Hayes has created his own clothing company called Wise God that sells shirts and hats, among other items. He wishes the brand could have started in school when he would have been able to leverage his profile most.
The new allowances the NCAA hopes to enact in January regarding NIL would at their best help student-athletes with similar aspirations to Hayes follow through on their creative passions to profit off their name, image and likeness in addition to benefiting from traditional paid partnerships. State legislation, including a Florida bill passed in June that would go into effect next year, could push the NCAA to make further concessions. The NCAA wants Congress to create uniform legislation on NIL to prevent differing state-by-state provisions; Power 5 conference leaders are independently meeting with lawmakers to push their own agendas for what that uniform policy might look like and not wait for the NCAA's process to conclude.
While the freedom to pursue creative opportunities as a student-athlete would mark progress, albeit necessitated by lawmakers, there are significant caveats under current NCAA recommendations that would limit what student-athletes are able to earn from their name, image and likeness. Under the guidelines, players would not be able to associate with their schools in paid partnerships, keeping them from fully taking advantage of their status as sport stars. No group licensing format exists in the proposal, meaning no income from being in video games or path to unionized strength.
And of course, sponsorship gains are just one part of the equation; there is still no talk of programs being able to pay players directly for their work outside minimal stipends.
Sporting News sought out the perspectives of people within the college sports landscape — Hayes included — to get the inside scoop on what is being said about the NIL proposal and larger shifts regarding student-athlete rights.
Below are a collection of thoughts from separate interviews, organized by topic. Each person spoke to Sporting News exclusively, with the exception of comments from Ohio State president and NCAA board of governors chairman Michael Drake, which came in a virtual news conference setting.
What was your reaction to the NCAA's NIL proposal?
There have been a variety of reactions to the recommendations, from general appreciation of a move toward increased athlete rights to concern about the specific logistics when it comes to recruiting and the use of agents. Coaches and student-athletes were more positive in their assessments of the situation than school administrators and lawmakers, who were split in their talks with Sporting News on whether the current NIL proposal goes too far or not far enough. North Carolina has been part of a counter movement against the NCAA asking legislators around the country to put enact laws that would enable group licensing for student-athletes but nothing else — for all intents and purposes exactly the opposite of what the NCAA board of governors desires.
Jay Wright (Villanova basketball coach): “This is something that we should have addressed probably 10 years ago, gradually. But I think that the landscape has forced us, and state legislation has forced us, to have to make a quick decision now. Given the situation, I think the committee has been doing a very good job because we’ve got to make quick decisions about a very complicated topic. We're in the business of education and big time sports. We're the only country in the world that does it. So we have to find a way to keep the emphasis on education and being a college student and still allow these athletes to benefit from their name, image and likeness. That’s the goal, but it’s going to be really complicated.”
David Shaw (Stanford football coach): “I’ll go all the way back to when I heard about the Ed O’Bannon (case). The first time I was introduced to something like this. I thought about it a while, I said, ‘You know what, this just makes sense. It just makes too much sense. … So I’m pleased that we’re here.’”
Bubba Cunningham (North Carolina athletic director): "I thought in the short term, going to a group license model would be more beneficial to more students. It would create new revenue that we know is in the market because we used to do it and that will give us more time to really understand the implications in recruiting and agent involvement."
Nancy Skinner (California state senator who co-authored bill on NIL): "The devil will be in the details. What exactly will be NCAA change? And this is why I think the more states acting is really important to keep the pressure up on the NCAA. To make sure that their change is real, and it doesn't just benefit a handful of athletes."
How is this all going to work?
Student-athletes will be allowed to build personal brands and make money off their name, image and likeness. Players will typically strike up paid sponsorships through agencies and media companies, such as INFLCR, which already works with many universities on social media marketing campaigns. The main limitations under the NCAA proposal are that athletes cannot represent their schools during paid ventures — so no wearing a team jersey in a car commercial — and are unable to join group licensing agreements with fellow competitors.
Jim Cavale (CEO of athlete brand management company INFLCR): “Representation will be there to advise the athlete on the values of deals and help bring new deals. … Those opportunities can be streamlined through our company to that athlete the same way that (our current social media services) are streamlined to them for them to share in a free setting. They can also go past social and go to a collectibles company wanting to put an opportunity in front of an athlete to sign memorabilia that they're going to sell. It could be an offline opportunity to appear somewhere.”
Jim Cavale: “So right now, it’s pure software as a service model where schools pay an annual or monthly subscription fee for the software based on how many teams are involved. There also brands who will eventually be advertisers on our platform for these athletes. Adidas, for instance, is a brand that uses INFLCR to manage the athletes they endorse. … That's the model now that'll continue. But the new revenue model that we will be adding to that is brands who want to spend dollars with their athletes will pay us to be able to do that. Athletes will never pay a dollar (to use our service).”
Michael Drake (Ohio State president): “The board is requiring guardrails around any future name, image and likeness activities. These would include such things as no name, image and likeness activities that would be considered pay for play. No school or conference involvement, no use of name image and likeness for recruiting by schools or by boosters, and the regulation of agents and advisors.”
How might the rules change the student-athlete experience for the better?
David Shaw: “I would love for more people to understand that a high percentage of coaches are in favor of this. There are certain people that have kind of painted coaches on the side of trying to restrict and take away from student athletes. Many of us get into college athletes not to restrict, but to advise and be mentors and teach and help young people grow. And many of us are in favor of this and are eager for this to come into place because it helps our student athletes. It helps them improve their mental state and also helps them benefit from the successes that they have.”
Jay Wright: “Part of their education can be learning to be entrepreneurs and learning how to market themselves and also learning how to operate in the business world and learning how to speak in public. … The positives are a simple thing like a basketball player in the summertime going to speak at a camp. Speaking in front of 400 campers and doing a presentation and a skill instruction and getting paid. To me, that is a great lifetime experience. It's a great educational experience.”
Russ Turner (UC Irvine basketball coach): “I think that at our level, in the mid-major level, the players are treated really well. And I'd be surprised if any of them that were part of our program saw it differently. Now, does that mean that they get everything that they could otherwise get if there were no restrictions? No, maybe not. I do think it makes common sense for them to be able to do a YouTube channel. And there are some obvious advancements with what this set of rules will allow. But I don't think that there's gonna be many guys in our school who benefit from, you know, paid autograph signings.”
Do you have any culture-related concerns about the proposal?
The longstanding debate over any rule that might "professionalize" amateur athletics has colored the conversation about NIL policy. Even coaches and administrators who generally support the proposal expressed a level of concern about where major college sports are headed.
David Shaw: “I’m particularly concerned about agents. I spent nine years in the NFL, and I have story after story for you about the number of agents and money managers that have either done a poor job representing their clients or just straight up stolen money from them. My concern for young people is that they can be easily taken advantage, them and their inner families. They are not professionals yet. They don't have a lot of contacts or context for the world that they're getting into. So we'd love to have something (in place) whether it's a an educational process for them all coming into college guide to restrictions for agents representing young people to some kind of a tiered punishment for those that violate the trust of young people.”
Jay Wright: “I want there to still be a difference between being a professional athlete and a student athlete. I want players to be able to come (to school) still wanting to get their education, develop as a basketball player, be a part of the Villanova community. And then also want to be able to benefit from name, image and likeness.”
Russ Turner: “The dynamics of everything in the NBA are different because it's a profession. And as soon as college athletes shifts in the direction of being more like a professional sports players, a lot is lost. Those of us who are in it probably have a sense for how all those dynamics can change. What a shame it feels like that could be if this is not done right. And it's not easy to have confidence that it's gonna get done right. When politicians start weighing in on this issue, it feels like this something's not quite right. Because I don't think this is a civil rights issue. I don't think that college athletes in general are being treated unfairly very often. I think there's some isolated cases where maybe they are treated unfairly, but it seems also like those cases give a lot of, you know, interesting media attention that may be unnecessary.”
Russ Turner: “It's going to be very difficult to expand those rights and then have a set of rules that schools and athletes have to follow. It’s going to be especially difficult to enforce those rules and figure out how players (and schools) who get outside those rules are going to be punished. It's really, really difficult, I think. That's one of my stances. One of virtual ignorance on it at this until they figure out (the finer details).”
Bubba Cunningham: "Doing those (NIL-related) things take an awful lot of time in organization and management. And you're talking about 18- to 22-year-olds. Do they really have the time to do that? You know, we just passed legislation two or three years ago about time management. We didn't want to cannibalize more of their time. They have to go to school, they have to go to practice, they want to practice to get better, and they're gonna run a business on the side? I think that's a pretty tall ask."
What about recruiting or rule violation worries?
Beyond cultural concerns, some coaches are anxious about a lack of clarity in how to navigate the already perilous recruiting process now that NIL is part of the equation.
David Shaw: “We want the recruiting process to stay as pure as possible. I know there's a lot of cynics out there that will say that it’s already not. The desire is for young people to choose where they want to go to school where they want to play their sport. And then beyond that, be able to use their own name, image and likeness, and whatever they want to, to have some income.”
David Shaw: “We would love for the student athletes to be able to have a business or clothing line. A lot of young men and women like to do YouTube channels and things that are creative and receive money for that, which is great. But many of us want some restrictions on the universities so that no one is able to have a recruiting advantage because of the name image and likeness possibilities.”
Jay Wright: “Keeping (these financials) out of the recruiting process is going to be really challenging for everyone. I just feel like we're so early in this that a lot of ideas sound good, but I guess I want to make sure that we’re vetting everything first and creating (safeguards).”
Should student-athletes be able to affiliate with schools when promoting themselves?
The inability for student-athletes to connect their schools to their personal brand strikes some in college sports as strange; it could be a mutually beneficial growth opportunity and its ban hampers the extent to which players can leverage their personas. There is not a consensus response to this part of the recommendations, though.
Jim Cavale: “What I went in thinking was that rising tides would lift all boats in respect to student athletes who could bring their audiences to an already potent world of college sports marketing that the school is benefiting from. The audiences of the student-athletes combined with the existing audiences of the college athletic department would create a bigger value opportunity to brands. But because the initial proposal of regulations is keeping the school out of this, and instead of it being a together thing, it's a separate thing where the student athlete has to do things on their own without mentioning that they play that school, I think that value opportunities will clearly be limited and I think that there is not a consensus at this point.”
David Shaw: “I think a lot of people want to say, ‘Hey, let's not muddy the waters.’ … That's one of the arguments that I've heard. I do understand both sides of it. But I do believe there are a lot more conversations that are coming down the pipe.”
Jay Wright: “I haven't thought deeply enough through that. But on the surface, that seems really interesting to me.”
Nancy Skinner: "It is ... appropriate to limit the athletes' use of their team insignias or their uniforms because that would potentially impinge on the college. The athlete should be a brand in and of her or his self. And there are certainly lots of opportunities for athletes and for their unique and personal brand."
Will NIL reform lead to further meaningful NCAA change?
The power struggle in college athletics remains far from over, as student-athletes from revenue sports want further compensation for their work while the NCAA worries its financial grip on the industry is slipping.
Nigel Hayes (former Wisconsin basketball player): “They move slowly because players let them. That's one thing I said when I was in college is that people only care about and these institutions only care about money, and they move as slow as the money you affect allows them to. Not to compare, I will never ever compare athletics to, you know, slavery and segregation, but you're familiar with the bus boycotts in Montgomery, when they boycotted the buses. They were like, ‘You know what, OK, you guys win. We'd rather have you pay, and then you can have whatever you want.’ … If and when a player or team decides to sit out of a game and that causes an uproar, then you will start to see lickety-split decisions get made in the favor of athletes.”
Michael Drake: “The evolving legal and legislative landscape around these (payment) issues not only could undermine college sports as a part of higher education but also significantly limit the NCAA’s ability to meet the needs of college athletes moving forward. We must continue to engage with Congress in order to secure the appropriate legal and legislative framework to modernize our rules around name, image and likeness. We will do so in a way that underscores the association’s mission to oversee and protect college athletics and college athletes on a national scale.”