Basepath hosted a webinar with On3 College Sports and Transfer Portal Reporter Pete Nakos to provide insight into the the latest changes in NIL for collectives and collegiate athletes. The conversation explored key trends in the NIL space, including how schools are adapting to new financial models, the growing role of collectives in athlete recruitment and retention, and the impact of potential legislative changes on the future of college sports.
House v. NCAA Settlement (1:17)
Clemson Ventures, a newly launched initiative, is part of a broader movement among schools to redefine what NIL looks like post House settlement. As institutions like Clemson reorganize their athletics programs for this new era, they are likely generating revenue that supports both NIL opportunities and the terms of the House settlement. However, operationalizing these changes brings its own set of risks, particularly with Title IX expected to become a significant focus as the settlement progresses. For instance, if the settlement dictates that football players receive 75% of TV revenue, it could set a precedent for them to also receive a similar share of retroactive pay. Revenue sharing is raising many questions about the implications for athlete employment, with attention on the ongoing Johnson case as a potential turning point. Meanwhile, Dartmouth has faced a tumultuous few years, with its athletes’ union filing a charge with the NLRB over the college’s refusal to negotiate pay. As these developments unfold, they present an interesting opportunity for other Ivy League athletes to engage in the movement, though being at the forefront of such a shift demands a lot from these student-athletes.
Revenue Sharing (7:15)
As the House v. NCAA settlement and collective bargaining continue to be discussed as potential solutions, bringing athletes to the negotiating table is seen as essential to ensuring the long-term sustainability of college sports. Athletes.org (AO) and Jim Cavale have been actively engaging with athletes to explain the settlement and secure them a voice in these critical discussions. However, no definitive decisions on collective bargaining have been made. According to Nakos, the prospect of collective bargaining could lead to significant challenges in the future, as athletes are likely to keep pushing for a bigger share of the revenue. Settlements alone aren’t expected to resolve these issues, and those who currently benefit financially won’t easily agree to take a cut. With major TV contracts set to expire in 2030, another reshaping of college sports could be on the horizon, potentially introducing even more changes to the landscape.
Collectives (11:20)
The collective landscape is evolving rapidly, with some interesting developments taking place. Tennessee, for instance, has opened the first-ever brick-and-mortar store for NIL merchandise, marking a new direction for collectives. While there was initial concern around international athletes and NIL, that issue has now faded into the background as collectives explore different approaches. From launching branded alcohol lines to navigating their unique school ecosystems, each collective is finding its own path. Take Ole Miss, for example, where Walker is leading a membership week initiative in close collaboration with the school. The level of donor and booster involvement varies, with programs like LSU and Nebraska fully embracing their collectives by creating foundations that handle collective fundraising. These setups often allow boosters to earn priority points for season tickets. Operational risks, such as hiring staff to manage these growing efforts, are a factor as well. Meanwhile, multi-year deals between athletes and collectives are becoming more popular, offering stability and reducing the likelihood of athletes entering the transfer portal.
Roster Sizes (19:25)
Confidence is growing that every school in the SEC will fund up to 105 scholarships, while others are capping at 85 or 95. NIL collectives may also be asked to cover some scholarships. Schools like SMU are paying athletes directly, though it remains to be seen if this will change. Budgets vary widely across schools: top programs are spending $18-20 million annually on NIL, while average teams spend around $10-15 million. It’s becoming clear that at least $5 million a year is necessary just to stay competitive.
At this stage, many schools are focusing more on internal investments, including spending significant amounts to retain top talent and address roster needs. Much of the off-season revolves around keeping players satisfied with contracts. Although the transfer portal officially reopens in December, activity never truly stops, particularly with roster limits increasing pressure. The portal is expected to get even busier, with questions arising about how the House settlement will impact players already in the system.
For both Power 5 and Group of 5 schools, the balance of collective funds spent on recruitment versus retention is becoming increasingly important. Group of 5 schools, in particular, are finding it more crucial than ever to retain their athletes, though some are embracing a minor league mindset and are prepared for players to leave. Going forward, especially with the election coming up the NCAA will continue to look to Congress for a solution and assistance with enforcement.