With the sweeping changes initiated by NCAA policy and reinforced by the House v. NCAA settlement, the era of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) in collegiate athletics has rapidly transformed from a legal curiosity to a billion-dollar marketplace. In 2025 alone, athletes are expected to earn over $1.9 billion through NIL arrangements, with both direct-to-athlete payments and commercial endorsements forming the backbone of this new economy. For athletes, NIL has brought unprecedented opportunities and responsibilities. For brands, it represents a new and potent avenue for marketing—one that requires a nuanced approach to valuation and partnership.

Understanding how NIL value is determined, the mechanisms for building that value, and the strategies brands must use to evaluate it is now essential for anyone in the ecosystem. This guide provides a deep dive into all facets of NIL valuation, practical steps for maximizing an athlete’s NIL value, and the frameworks companies use to assess and partner with college athletes—all informed by the most recent legal developments and case law through November 2025.

Section 1: What Is NIL Value and How Is It Calculated?

The Definition and Scope of NIL

NIL—Name, Image, and Likeness—refers to the legal right of an athlete to profit from personal branding, endorsements, social media, appearances, and more. It is not merely athletic salary; it combines the athlete’s reputation, off-field influence, and entrepreneurial ability within the legal frameworks set by governing bodies such as the NCAA and the College Sports Commission (CSC). The landscape has shifted dramatically since the approval of the House v. NCAA settlement on June 6, 2025, which fundamentally restructured how college athletes can be compensated.

The House v. NCAA Settlement: A Game-Changing Framework

On June 6, 2025, federal Judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval to the $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement, the most significant antitrust victory for college athletes in history. The settlement resolved claims that NCAA rules unlawfully limited athlete compensation and created the architecture for modern NIL valuation and enforcement.

Key Changes Introduced:

• Back-Pay Distribution: Athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024 will receive approximately $2.8 billion over ten years (roughly $280 million annually), compensating them for lost NIL opportunities under the previous restrictive NCAA rules.
• Direct Revenue Sharing: Beginning July 1, 2025, schools can directly compensate athletes up to $20.5 million per institution annually (estimated to rise to $32.9 million by 2034-35), representing the first legitimized “pay-for-play” arrangement in college sports.
• Eliminated Scholarship Caps: The settlement eliminated traditional NCAA scholarship limits, allowing schools to offer as many scholarships as roster limits permit, opening over 115,000 new scholarship slots annually across Division I.
• NIL Restrictions Narrowed: While the NCAA retained limited authority to restrict NIL payments from school-affiliated boosters and collectives, these restrictions are significantly narrower than pre-settlement rules and require compliance with fair market value standards.

NIL Valuation: The Key Factors

Valuing an athlete’s NIL involves a multi-faceted analysis, blending objective metrics with contextual judgments. The College Sports Commission, established as the enforcement body under the House settlement, has implemented standardized protocols for NIL valuation. Leading frameworks consider several primary elements:

• Athletic Performance and Achievements: High-level sports success increases visibility and creates more lucrative opportunities, but athletic success is not strictly required for high NIL value.
• Social Media Presence and Engagement: Follower count, engagement rate, cross-platform influence, and content quality are crucial. An athlete with even a few thousand followers can be valuable to local brands, while major influencers command national deals.
• Market Size and Location: The city, institution, and the athlete’s local community impact potential reach and deal value.
• Personal Branding: Storytelling, authenticity, and values alignment with sponsors matter greatly.
• Type and Scope of Deliverables: Social media posts, appearances, merchandise, and more all add unique value to a deal.
• Comparable Benchmarks: Analysis of previous deals of similar scope, sport, and market is now a strict regulatory requirement under CSC oversight.
• Deal Terms: Contract duration, exclusivity, renewal options, deliverables, and timing play significant roles in value.
• Agency Involvement: Representation by professional agencies can increase value and secure better opportunities.

Formal Valuation and Fair Market Value Under the New Regulatory Framework

The College Sports Commission has established a formal, three-pronged process for ensuring NIL deals reflect fair market value (FMV), with enforcement beginning in July 2025:

1. Associated Status Verification: Identifies if a payor is affiliated with the athlete’s institution. Affiliated payors face stricter scrutiny; third-party, unaffiliated sponsors have greater flexibility.
2. Valid Business Purpose (VBP) Verification: Assesses whether the deal is connected to genuine commercial objectives. Per updated CSC guidance (August 2025), valid business purposes must: (a) involve promotion of a for-profit good or service; (b) reflect fair market value; and (c) serve a legitimate business purpose.
3. Comparables and Compensation Range Analysis: Benchmarks the proposed deal against others in the market using multiple factors—including a proprietary algorithm, social media metrics, sport, position, geography, and more.

Any NIL deal exceeding $600 must undergo this review and be registered through the NIL Go portal, managed by the CSC in partnership with Deloitte. As of November 2025, the CSC has reported reviewing approximately 8,000 deals worth nearly $80 million (later revised to 6,000 deals worth $35 million due to a clerical error), with approximately 332 deals denied.

Ongoing Compliance Challenges and Scrutiny

The implementation of the NIL Go clearinghouse has not been without challenges. As of October 2025, Congressional correspondence and public reporting indicate that the CSC operates with a limited staff (approximately four full-time employees) and has faced criticism for slow decision-making, with a significant backlog of pending deal approvals. The CSC also announced an anonymous “reporting tip line” for potential violations, raising concerns about process transparency and due process protections. Athletes and sponsors should be prepared for potential delays in deal approval and should budget additional time before finalizing NIL partnerships.

Section 2: How Athletes Can Maximize Their NIL Value

Building an Influential Personal Brand

• Authenticity and Storytelling: Athletes who craft a compelling, authentic personal narrative stand out. Fans and sponsors are drawn to those who boldly showcase their values, life off the field, and unique personality. Consistency across social platforms is essential—be the same person online and offline.
• Social Media Strategy: Strong, regularly updated profiles on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) offer exponential reach. Engagement is more important than raw follower count: interactive, value-driven content builds loyalty and attracts deals from both local and national brands.
• Expand Beyond Sports: Exploring interests such as music, fashion, gaming, or entrepreneurship broadens an athlete’s audience and increases their appeal to sponsors in those sectors. Community engagement and charity work further enhance value by demonstrating long-term brand strength.
• Education and Professional Support: Taking advantage of university and external NIL education—especially in finance, taxes, and contract law—prevents missteps and positions an athlete for sustained success. Many colleges now provide dedicated NIL support staff and offer access to NIL Assist and similar platforms for benchmarking and education.

Strategic Approaches to Partnerships

• Local and Niche Partnerships: Athletes don’t need to be superstars to earn from NIL. Local restaurants, fitness studios, and community businesses can offer meaningful contracts, especially for those with a strong home-state or university following.
• Content Monetization: Platforms like YouTube and TikTok allow direct monetization; personalized merchandise and digital collectibles provide additional passive income streams.
• Professional Representation: Agencies and legal advisors can elevate deals, open doors to broader opportunities, and protect athletes from predatory contracts or undervaluation.
• Understanding Eligibility and Residency Changes: Recent case law demonstrates that eligibility challenges can affect NIL opportunities. Athletes should understand the implications of transfers and eligibility rules on their NIL marketability. For example, the Martinson v. NCAA case (September 2025) highlighted how eligibility restrictions can directly impact NIL opportunities.

Financial and Legal Best Practices

• Set Up Proper Business Structures: Create an LLC or S-Corporation, open separate business accounts, and use financial software to track all earnings and expenses. This is vital for taxes, liability, and professionalism.
• Tax Planning: NIL earnings are taxable. Track payments and expenses carefully, make quarterly estimated tax payments, and consult with professionals to avoid surprises.
• Contract Review: Work with NIL-experienced lawyers to review exclusivity clauses, compensation terms, performance requirements, and exit options. The CSC’s enhanced enforcement framework means contracts must be more carefully drafted to ensure regulatory compliance.
• Know Fair Market Value Benchmarks: Familiarize yourself with CSC-approved NIL market rates for your sport, position, and social media following. As of July 2025, athletes are increasingly required to justify their compensation against these benchmarks.
• Disclose Deals Timely: Prospective student-athletes (high school and junior college transfers) must disclose all NIL deals exceeding $600 to the NIL Go clearinghouse within two weeks of enrollment; current Division I athletes must submit documentation within five business days to avoid ineligibility.
• Budget and Save: Don’t overspend early—set aside earnings, invest, and plan for both variable income and post-athletic career paths.

Section 3: How Companies Should Value Athlete NIL

Aligning NIL Partnerships with Brand Objectives

• Authenticity is Key: The most successful campaigns go beyond simple ads. Long-form, content-rich collaborations (docuseries, product launches, social initiatives) allow athletes to express their personality and values, building deep engagement with the brand’s target market.
• Evaluate Audience Fit: Companies should analyze the makeup and engagement of an athlete’s audience. Partnering with athletes whose followers align with the brand’s demographics amplifies ROI and reduces wasted spending.
• Track Market and Benchmark Deals: Use databases like On3 NIL, public NIL reports, and the CSC’s NIL Go portal to review comparable contracts and set offers within accepted ranges. The CSC’s FMV evaluation framework requires companies to justify compensation, particularly for affiliated payors. As of August 2025, the CSC has clarified that even collectives using dual funding sources (donor + commercial) must comply with VBP standards.

Key Considerations for Proper NIL Valuation

• Performance and Potential: Assess both current and projected performance—college athletes’ value can change significantly with transfers, major gameplay, or off-field news.
• Social and Cultural Relevance: Athletes with viral moments, cultural appeal, or strong activism often have outsized impact on brand campaigns beyond what their followership might imply.
• Contract Structure: Structure contracts carefully: balance cash, product, event deliverables, and campaign timelines. Include options for renewal or escalation as an athlete’s value rises. Be mindful that overly broad exclusivity clauses may be challenged as anticompetitive or may limit CSC approval.
• ROI Tracking: Calculate ROI by tracking direct sales, engagement uplift, and brand sentiment metrics before and after the partnership. ROAS (Return on Advertising Spend) and ROMI (Return on Marketing Investment) offer quantifiable insights into campaign effectiveness.
• Compliance with CSC Standards: For deals exceeding $600, be prepared to justify the FMV rationale to the CSC. Have comparable market data and a clear business purpose documented. As of late 2025, the CSC has shown willingness to scrutinize deals it deems inflated, and delays in approval can disrupt campaign timelines.

Common Pitfalls for Brands to Avoid

• Overvaluing or Undervaluing Athletes: Failing to benchmark against comparable deals or relying solely on surface-level metrics often leads to wasted budget or missed opportunities. The CSC’s denial of approximately 332 deals (as of late 2025) demonstrates that the regulator is actively filtering out overvalued agreements.
• Vague or Restrictive Contract Terms: Ambiguous compensation structures, overly broad exclusivity clauses, or unclear deliverables invite disputes, hinder the partnership’s success, and may fail CSC review.
• Short-Term Focus: One-off promotional posts are less effective than longer, purpose-driven engagements that foster lasting positive associations. The CSC has signaled a preference for partnerships with legitimate business purposes, not short-term pay-for-play schemes.
• Ignoring Regulatory Timelines: With the CSC requiring up to two weeks (for prospective athletes) or five business days (for current athletes) for deal approval, companies must build regulatory processing time into campaign planning.

Case Studies: NIL Done Right

• CeraVe’s Skincare Campaign: Collaborated with diverse student-athletes to create authentic, multi-platform content, leading to widespread brand awareness and 5 million impressions.
• Champs Sports “Weekend Warriors” Campaign: Focused on high-engagement athletes and tailored content across TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, creating a deeper, relatable connection with their audience while maintaining campaign consistency and authenticity.
• Arizona State and Burrito Express: A local athlete created his signature meal, blending on-field performance with social media content, special events, and merchandise, amplifying results for both brand and athlete.

Section 4: Navigating NIL Contracts and Agency

Key Clauses and Terms

1. Compensation and Payment Terms: Should be clear, detailed, and include payment schedules. Must reflect FMV and have a documented business purpose to pass CSC review.
2. Exclusivity Clauses: Limitations on competing sponsorships. Negotiate to keep these narrow in scope (e.g., only for direct product competitors), and confined in duration. Include “buyout” options for bigger opportunities. Overly broad exclusivity may face CSC scrutiny as potentially anticompetitive.
3. Term and Renewal: Avoid excessively long automatic renewal clauses or unlimited contract lengths.
4. Performance Requirements: Clearly define what is expected—number of posts, event appearances, content standards.
5. Regulatory Compliance Clause: New as of 2025, specify that the deal is conditioned on CSC approval and outline procedures if approval is delayed or denied.
6. Exit Clauses: Ensure terms for ending a contract are spelled out, especially if the partnership isn’t working or regulatory approval is denied.

Negotiation Tips: Know your worth, compare yourself with previous brand partners, and never hesitate to walk away from a deal that restricts future earnings or limits brand growth. Trusted representation can tip the scales in an athlete’s favor, securing favorable terms and higher long-term value. Be prepared to provide supporting documentation (social media metrics, engagement data, comparable deals) to justify your FMV position to the CSC.

Section 5: Recent Case Law and Ongoing Legal Challenges

Title IX and Gender Equity Concerns

The House settlement, while transformative, has sparked immediate legal challenges on gender equity grounds. On June 11, 2025—just five days after settlement approval—eight female student-athletes filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the back-pay distribution violates Title IX.

The Challenge

The settlement allocates approximately 90% of the $2.8 billion back-pay fund to male athletes (75% to men’s football, 15% to men’s basketball), with only 5% to women’s basketball and 5% to all other athletes. Female athletes argue this formula, which bases payouts on historical television revenue, violates Title IX’s mandate for gender equity in federally funded education programs.

Current Status

Back-pay distributions are paused pending Ninth Circuit review. Appellate briefs were due by October 3, 2025, and a resolution could take a year or more. However, other reforms—including revenue sharing, scholarship changes, and NIL flexibility—remain in effect and unaffected by the appeal.

Implications for Athletes and Brands

This ongoing litigation may reshape how NIL compensation is distributed going forward. Companies and athletes should monitor this case, as future rulings could mandate gender-equitable NIL distribution formulas, affecting market dynamics and valuation standards.

Eligibility Challenges and NIL Impact

Two significant 2025 cases illustrate ongoing tensions between NCAA eligibility rules and NIL opportunities:

Martinson v. NCAA (September 2025)

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted a preliminary injunction blocking the NCAA’s enforcement of its “Five-Year Rule” as applied to junior college (JUCO) athletes. Tatuo Martinson, a UNLV defensive lineman, argued that the rule—which limits JUCO athletes to two or three seasons of Division I play while allowing direct entrants four seasons—constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade. Critically, Martinson demonstrated that the rule caused “immediate and irreparable harm” by disqualifying him from a video game NIL opportunity and his spot on the team. This case signals that courts are willing to scrutinize NCAA eligibility rules when they directly impact NIL opportunities.

Fourqurean v. NCAA (July 2025, Seventh Circuit Reversal)

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s preliminary injunction that had granted University of Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean a fifth year of eligibility. Fourqurean challenged the Five-Year Rule (which limits all athletes to four seasons within five years) after the NCAA denied his waiver request, arguing the rule unlawfully restrains trade and blocks NIL opportunities during his peak earning years. However, the appellate court held that Fourqurean failed to adequately define the relevant market and did not show how the rule harmed competition broadly—merely showing individual exclusion was insufficient. The case underscores that eligibility challenges requiring broad antitrust analysis face a high bar, though as Martinson demonstrates, courts may apply different standards in different circuits.

For Athletes and Brands

These cases reveal that eligibility rules remain contested and may continue to evolve. Athletes should consult legal advisors about potential eligibility risks, especially after transfers. Brands should be aware that eligibility disputes can suddenly jeopardize athlete availability, potentially voiding NIL deals; include contingency clauses for eligibility changes.

CSC Implementation and Compliance Challenges

As of November 2025, the College Sports Commission’s enforcement of NIL rules has encountered significant operational challenges. Congressional correspondence (October 10, 2025) noted that the CSC has:

• Issued overly restrictive guidance (e.g., an initial ban on collective payments), then quickly reversed it.
• Reported clearing 8,000 deals worth $80 million, then revised numbers downward to 6,000 and $35 million due to clerical errors.
• Denied approximately 332 deals worth roughly $10 million, with limited transparency about denial criteria.
• Operated with a very small staff (approximately four full-time employees) relative to the volume of deals requiring review.
• Announced an anonymous “reporting tip line,” raising concerns about due process and transparency.

For Athletes and Brands

These operational challenges mean NIL deal approval timelines are unpredictable. Build extra time into campaign planning and consider having contingency deals ready. Maintain detailed documentation of all deal terms, social media metrics, and FMV justifications to support CSC submissions and respond to potential challenges.

Section 6: Challenges and Future Trends in NIL Valuation

Evolving Regulations and Standards

With increasing standardization from the College Sports Commission and the implementation of stricter FMV rules, transparency and compliance are improving, but the market remains dynamic. Athletes and brands must stay educated and adapt as best practices, regulations, and case law continue to evolve.

Executive Branch and Legislative Attention

In July 2025, President Trump issued the “Saving College Sports” executive order, directing federal agencies to develop regulatory responses to NIL concerns and mandating that revenue-sharing models preserve or expand scholarships and opportunities in women’s and non-revenue sports. Agency deadlines for regulatory proposals were set for August and September 2025; however, as of November 2025, no formal federal guidance has been published. The Department of Labor and National Labor Relations Board have been instructed to clarify athlete employment status, with significant implications for future NIL valuation and athlete rights.

Financial and Educational Empowerment

More universities are providing robust NIL education, financial literacy training, and contract support. Athletes who make use of these resources are less likely to make costly mistakes and more likely to succeed during and after their sports careers.

Market Maturity and Data-Driven Decisions

Deal data from platforms like On3 NIL, NIL Go, and public databases is making valuations more scientific and less speculative. As more data on ROI, engagement, and campaign success becomes public, and as the CSC enforces FMV standards more consistently, the gap between athlete, brand, and institutional expectations is closing.

How Athletes Can Maximize Their NIL Value and How Companies Can Properly Value an Athlete’s NIL

NIL is a game-changing development in college sports, ushering in immense financial upside but also new complexities and regulatory oversight. The House v. NCAA settlement has created the architecture for modern athlete compensation, but ongoing legal challenges—particularly on Title IX grounds—and operational challenges at the College Sports Commission indicate the landscape will continue to evolve. Athletes maximize their value by focusing on personal branding, professional management, prudent financial and legal planning, and staying informed about regulatory changes. Companies, meanwhile, must approach athlete partnerships with rigorous valuation frameworks, authentic brand fit, transparent contract structures, and anticipation of regulatory delays and scrutiny. Both sides succeed by focusing on long-term, values-driven engagement and maintaining flexibility as rules, case law, and enforcement practices change—ushering in a future where NIL is not just about sponsorship, but about sustainable, mutually beneficial brand-building in an increasingly regulated marketplace.

Horgan Law – Your Trusted Omaha Law Firm

If you’re looking for an Omaha law firm that combines the wisdom of experience with the energy and ambition of youth, look no further than Horgan Law, P.L.L.C. As experienced Lawyers in Omaha, NE, we apply our knowledge to every case to get you the best possible outcome. Our success is measured by yours-no matter what your situation is, we’ll be there to help you through it.

Ready to experience the difference? Contact Horgan Law today to discuss how we can assist. Your legal journey just got easier.