University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

But who really wins?: College athletes' analysis of name, image, and likeness policy narratives

(USC Thesis Other)

But who really wins?: College athletes' analysis of name, image, and likeness policy narratives

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright 2023 Isaiah Simmons
“BUT WHO REALLY WINS? COLLEGE ATHLETES’ ANALYSIS OF NAME, IMAGE,
AND LIKENESS POLICY NARRATIVES’”
by
Isaiah Simmons
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(URBAN EDUCATION POLICY)
May 2023

ii
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my grandmother Gloria Simmons and my grandfather
Nathan Gamble, both of whom passed away before I began my doctoral program. Their
investment in me: emotionally, spiritually, culinarily (I’m talking about some legendary
chocolate cakes and bread pudding here), and at times financially, was formative for the person I
am today. Although they didn’t get to see me finish this journey, I know they believed I could,
and for that I’m grateful. Thank you both, and my remaining two grandparents as well.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I was raised in an era where many of my favorite artists would put their thanks and
acknowledgments in the liner notes of the album which would be on the inside of the album
artwork in most cases. Some of them would be gracious enough to record a song on the album
vocalizing these acknowledgments, which I always appreciated because they included
individuals that I would have never thought would have influenced those projects (J. Cole, 2014;
Lupe Fiasco, 2006). This section feels a lot like that. This project would not have succeeded
without the support of those mentioned here and several others. I am forever grateful. Cue the
beat drop.
Jesus— I have to first begin by acknowledging my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Not in the
award acceptance speech kind of way, but in a real-life way this journey has reflected your
faithfulness. Countless doors were opened for me throughout the journey of conceptualizing and
writing this dissertation that I could not have orchestrated on my own. At several times
throughout this journey I felt the weight of the world was on my shoulders, but I thank You for
providing me with community and constantly reminding me that I can cast my cares on you
because You care for me (1 Peter 5:7). Lord, I thank you for your faithfulness.
Family— Mom, Dad, Aliyah, Alaysia, and Tre. I love you five more than I can put into words.
Thank you for your constant support and the constant accountability you provide for me. I
always want to make sure you five are ok, thank you for doing the same for me. Mom, I hope
I’ve made you proud, your encouragement has helped me so much throughout all of this. Dad,
I’m glad you’re here to see all of this. I hope I’ve made you proud, thank you for modeling what
it means to work hard, to sacrifice for others, and how to stop doing those things when they come
at the cost of my own wellbeing. The Simmons Siblingsä, the four of us versus whatever, I like
our chances. We have dealt with a lot over the past few years, but we are still here and thriving, I
am proud to be big brother to three young, gifted, and Black individuals like you all. To my wife
Breanna, thank you for giving me the space to pursue being excellent and not holding it against
me, and thank you for encouraging me to take breaks when I didn’t think I needed it. I love you.
Cohort 2019 — Anamely Salgado, Edgar Lopez, Elif Yucel, Jacob Alonso, James Bridgeforth,
Jaymon Ortega, Jennifer Gribben, John Ezaki, Jordan Harper, Liddy Morris, and Tong Tong, I
am eternally grateful for you 11. Beyond being my cohort members and some of my closest
friends, you all have been my family for the past four years. From surviving a global pandemic

iv
together during our first year of the program, to game nights, dinners, cohort trips, and all the
other ways we’ve done life together, I don’t make it through this program without you all, I don’t
get job offers without you all. Thank you for being friends who checked in on me, who read over
proposals, cover letters, job talks, sent me album, movie, finance, and restaurant
recommendations, I could go on endlessly. But suffice it to say, I love you all, and thank you for
being family for me here in LA. Also, a special shoutout to my brother Mundy Diaz, thank you
for staying around LA after the Master’s program and always being down for tacos and
reminding me of the bigger picture beyond school and work.
Dissertation Committee— I would like to thank my committee Drs. Shaun Harper, Kendrick
Davis, and Jamel Donnor for your support throughout this process. I’m grateful for the
opportunity to have had a committee of Black men who have modeled what it’s like to succeed
at the doctoral level. Thank you for the sharpening, encouragement, and pushing me to be better.
Dr. Shaun Harper, thank you for taking a chance on me five years ago as a Master’s student who
asked for fifteen minutes of your time and five years and several projects later, thank you. Thank
you for believing in my ideas and my desire to pursue excellence, while also letting me know
when to pull back and do less. I greatly appreciate you.
GCF— I would like to thank the members of InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship who
have been a constant for me during my six years on USC’s campus. There are too many of you
all to name, but thank you all for your constant prayers, encouragement, celebrating me when I
wanted to downplay things, and for keeping me grounded. Special thanks to Jerry Romasco,
Christopher Roque, Taylor Enoch-Stevens and Nathan Decker for your leadership, friendship,
and care.
Black Women— Throughout my doctoral journey, I have had the privilege of being mentored
and supported by a plethora of brilliant Black women, many of whom were also doctoral
students. Given the numerous ways Black women are subjected to misogynoir, minimization,
and inequitable treatment in the academy, in campus environments and in American society
generally. I want to acknowledge them specifically here in hopes that my work and life stands in
solidarity with them: Drs. Sarah Toutant- my big sis and exemplar from the time I was a Masters
student, Aireale Rodgers, Taylor-Enoch Stevens, Eupha Jeanne Daramola, Tara-Marie
Desruisseaux, Marissa Layton, Brandi Jones, Kaylan Baxter, Ebony Lambert, Mikaela Spruill
and Anne Charity-Hudley. I also would like to acknowledge my aunts, Ms. JoAnn Bute and Mrs.
Courtney Wiley-Harris. Lastly, I would like to thank four special women for their immeasurable
contribution to my writing process: Maya Wilkes, Lynn Searcy, Toni Childs, and Joan Clayton.
Virginia Beach Supporters— The city of Virginia Beach, Virginia has shaped me in innumerable
ways and I wanted to make sure I acknowledged those who have supported me since my teen
years and spoke life over me throughout this journey: Zed, James, Masai, Isaiah Thomas, Trinity,
Diona, Marle, Mrs. Lee, Ms. Kofa, my second mother Ms. Susanna Davis, Mrs. Angie
Cosimano, Mrs. MaryAnn Lafler- the standard by which all of my bosses are measured, and my
family from the Virginia Beach Leadership Workshop.

v
My Therapist— Thank you for your support over the last four years. You created a space for me
to express all of my doubts and emotions, by challenging me to not bypass emotions to solve the
next problem, and reaffirming my humanity is not tied to achievement or production even when I
did not want to believe it. Thank you for everything.
Laura and Alex— Thank you both so much for making sure I and other PhD students have
everything we need, for being there to talk about life, it means a lot to me. I also apologize for
the times I dropped the ball and didn’t fill out forms promptly. Thank you for caring for me.
REC— Over the past five years I have had the privilege of working at the USC Race and Equity
Center and being around some of the most brilliant, compassionate people I have ever met in my
life. Thank you all so much for your support and for creating that physical space that holds so
many valuable memories for me. I would especially like to thank Charles, Sumi, Jade, Sy,
Natasha, Oscar, Wilmon, Annie, and Brandi Junious for their continued support, and I am
grateful to still be in community with you all. I would also like to thank Drs. Julie Marsh and
Julie Posselt for the opportunities they gave me to develop teaching and research experience
during my time at Rossier.
Participants— I would like to thank the 40 participants of this study, many of whom made the
time during season, in between practices, thank you all so much. You all work tremendously
hard and are among the best at what you all do. I learned so much from you and have a
tremendous amount of respect and gratitude for you. Thank you for bringing this study to life.
The Bucket Getters— To the guys I’ve been playing basketball with for years at USC and in the
community at our park: Jason, Andy, Addison, Evan, Zeke, Kyle, Mark, Darren and Juanito to
name a few, thank you for your support, saving me a spot in the runs when I would rush over
from writing sessions or meetings, and reminding me of the importance of scheduling both fun
and work.
Internal Grant— I would like to thank the Rossier Research Office for the Internal grant that
funded this dissertation, I am immensely grateful for your support.
Pot of Cha— Lastly, I would like to thank the wonderful employees at the Pot of Cha restaurant
on campus. Thank you for always being there when I needed a lift in my day and the
commitment to excellence you all have with the various teas you all produce. Those little things
mean the world for someone deep in a dissertation.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION................................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND OVERVIEW OF STUDY...................... 1
Statement of Problem ....................................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of Study.............................................................................................................................. 7
Significance of Study........................................................................................................................ 9
Key Concepts and Definitions .......................................................................................................... 11
Organization of Dissertation............................................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE................................................... 14
Origins of Modern Intercollegiate Athletics (1860s- 1900s).................................................................... 15
Early Years of the NCAA and Increased Commercialization of Collegiate Sports....................................... 16
Carnegie Report and the Outset of Commercial Radio and Television (Mid-1920s- 1940)............................ 17
The Rise of Television and NCAA Power (Post-World War II-1988)....................................................... 19
Amateurism as Foundational to NCAA Identity ................................................................................... 24
Amateurism as Foundational to Commercialization .............................................................................. 26
Court Cases Challenging Amateurism................................................................................................ 27
Athletic Compensation-McCormack vs. NCAA (1988)....................................................................... 27
Coaching Compensation- Law vs. NCAA (1998) and Hennessey vs. NCAA (1977).................................. 28
Eligibility Concerns- Banks vs. NCAA (1992), Oliver vs. NCAA (2009)................................................ 28
Exploitation Under Amateurism................................................................................................... 29
Knowledge-Based Exploitation......................................................................................................... 30
Gendered Exploitation .................................................................................................................... 32
Racialized Exploitation ................................................................................................................... 33
Narratives Around Paying Collegiate Athletes............................................................................. 35
In Opposition of Compensation ........................................................................................................ 36
Threats to Commercial Appeal and Amateurism .............................................................................. 36
Threats to Non-Revenue Generating Athletes .................................................................................. 37
Lack of Practical Enforcement ..................................................................................................... 37
In Favor of Compensation ............................................................................................................... 38
Current Flaws of Amateurism ...................................................................................................... 38
Reimagining Amateurism ............................................................................................................ 40
NIL Rights and the Current Collegiate Sports Context........................................................................... 41
O’Bannon vs. NCAA................................................................................................................... 41
California Senate Bill 206 ........................................................................................................... 42
Aftermath of SB-206 and Future Implications ..................................................................................... 43
A Conceptual Framework Towards Understanding Policy Narratives and Discourses............... 45
Critiquing Policy Narratives and Outcomes......................................................................................... 48

vii
Narrative Policy Framework........................................................................................................ 48
Racial Capitalism ...................................................................................................................... 51
Critical Policy Analysis .............................................................................................................. 53
Critiquing Institutional Rationales..................................................................................................... 55
CRT and Interest Convergence..................................................................................................... 56
Principal Agent Theory............................................................................................................... 58
Institutional Logics Perspective.................................................................................................... 60
Summary of Literature .................................................................................................................... 62
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ....................................................... 63
Rationale for Qualitative Inquiry....................................................................................................... 63
Instrumental Case Study Design ....................................................................................................... 64
Research Questions........................................................................................................................ 65
Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 65
Sampling and Recruitment............................................................................................................... 65
Data Collection Procedures.............................................................................................................. 68
Focus Groups................................................................................................................................ 68
Video Elicitation............................................................................................................................ 69
Data Analysis................................................................................................................................ 70
Trustworthiness............................................................................................................................. 74
Member Checks............................................................................................................................. 75
Peer Debriefs ................................................................................................................................ 75
Triangulation ................................................................................................................................ 76
Limitations................................................................................................................................... 76
Role of Researcher......................................................................................................................... 77
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS.................................................................................................... 80
Navigating NIL ............................................................................................................................. 81
Collegiate Athlete Stressors......................................................................................................... 81
Discourse Sources ..................................................................................................................... 82
Misconceptions ......................................................................................................................... 84
Navigational Capital .................................................................................................................. 86
Deal Variance........................................................................................................................... 90
Olympic Sports.......................................................................................................................... 91
Performativity........................................................................................................................... 93
Values-Based Rejection............................................................................................................... 96
NIL as Distraction ..................................................................................................................... 98
Corporate Interests.................................................................................................................... 99
Diversity as Opportunity ........................................................................................................... 101
NIL Benefits............................................................................................................................... 103
Post-sport Skills ...................................................................................................................... 103
NIL as Improved Financial Stability ............................................................................................ 105
Benefitting Factors .................................................................................................................. 107
NIL Inequities............................................................................................................................. 110

viii
Athlete Exploitation ................................................................................................................. 110
Elite Athlete Superiority............................................................................................................ 112
Recruitment Impacts................................................................................................................. 115
International Student Concern.................................................................................................... 117
Gendered Opportunities............................................................................................................ 120
NIL as Labor .......................................................................................................................... 123
Class Differences..................................................................................................................... 127
Merit-worthiness ..................................................................................................................... 131
Power of Platform ................................................................................................................... 133
Institutional Impacts..................................................................................................................... 136
Institutional Appraisals............................................................................................................. 137
Implementation Variance .......................................................................................................... 139
Corporate Interests.................................................................................................................. 141
Complexities of Representation .................................................................................................. 142
Reimagining NIL......................................................................................................................... 146
Financial Education................................................................................................................. 146
Alternative Solutions ................................................................................................................ 148
Institutional Support................................................................................................................. 151
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS......................... 153
Discussion.................................................................................................................................. 153
Implications for Policy, Practice, and Future Research ........................................................................ 163
Implications for Policy.............................................................................................................. 163
Implications for Practice........................................................................................................... 165
Implications for Future Research................................................................................................ 167
Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 170
Closing.................................................................................................................................. 171
References................................................................................................................................... 173
Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 187
Appendix A: Instrumental Case Study Interview Protocol (Semi-Structured) ............................... 187
Appendix B: Study Participant Consent Form for Research ...................................................... 189

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................47
Figure 2. List of Participants .......................................................................................................67
Figure 3. Padlet Activity Distribution Table................................................................................72

x
ABSTRACT
The problem this study addresses is the prevalence of uncritical policy narratives, which can
influence policy implementation in inequitable ways. Within the structure of policy narratives,
there are several common characteristics including: policy contexts, plots, characters, solutions,
and generalizability (Shanahan et al., 2011; Shanahan et al., 2013). These narratives are
constructed towards a desired policy outcome and are useful because of their ability to simplify
complex information such as policy realities. Given the power and influence of narratives, how
they are constructed, who they are constructed by, and towards what ends they are constructed
are critical questions to ask, especially given the oppressive nature of the American political
system. Highlighting the NCAA’s name, image and likeness (NIL) policies, the study gleaned
from the organizational and cultural history of collegiate athletics to highlight the ways that
policy narratives have influenced implementation within higher education and beyond, often in
ways that are detrimental to minoritized stakeholders. As will be discussed in chapter two, the
NCAA has a long history of exploiting collegiate athletes, often using the law to protect them
and their organizational practices. This study takes a critical perspective of NIL policies and their
influence on the collegiate athletics landscape. This study centered the voices of collegiate
athletes and their perspectives on NIL policy narratives, allowing for new narratives to develop.
This dissertation utilized qualitative research methods to conduct an instrumental case study
using NIL policies within one NCAA “Power 5” conference as a space to interrogate collegiate
athletes’ perspectives on NIL policy narratives and policies generally. Forty current collegiate
athletes across 10 different sports participated in focus group interviews for this study. Findings
indicated that for collegiate athletes, NIL policies created a vast amount of lived experiences
when accounting for the navigational capital required to pursue NIL opportunities, the benefits
and inequities within NIL policies, and the role institutions play in helping students achieve their
goals. Implications and recommendations for policy, future research, and practice to improve
NIL experiences for collegiate athletes and to pursue equitable education policy implementation
generally are discussed in the final chapter.

1
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND OVERVIEW OF STUDY
“If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress.
If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the
blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They
won't even admit the knife is there.”- Malcolm X (1964)
Creating the illusion of progress at the expense of minoritized and exploited groups has
been a feature of American public policy since the country’s outset. However, these illusions of
progress are especially salient in the current moment of 2023, following over two years of
dealing with the COVID-19 global pandemic which disrupted many sectors, including higher
education, in myriad ways. Responses to COVID-19 highlighted the priorities of individuals as
well as institutions, revealing and exacerbating many structural inequities in the process.
Determining what exactly constitutes progress from a policy perspective following an event such
as a pandemic is a matter of framing and narrative, which privileges only the most powerful
voices if done uncritically (Apple, 2019). While higher education was challenged in numerous
ways by COVID-19 including student housing crises, student mental health concerns, and
declining enrollment rates (Office of Civil Rights, 2021), one public-facing display of the
institutional priorities and inequities existing in some higher education institutions could
surprisingly be seen through the handling of intercollegiate sports. The 2021 NCAA Men’s
Division I Basketball Championship, commonly known as the March Madness tournament, also
highlighted the illusion of progress made regarding COVID-19 and collegiate athletes were the
students that this “progress” exploited.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an organization overseeing
intercollegiate sports within the United States, with over 1,200 member institutions, and among
their responsibilities is overseeing the championship tournaments of collegiate sports (Sheetz,
2016). Following the lead of the Ivy League schools which cancelled their conference

2
tournament in March of 2020, as well as the National Basketball Association (NBA) which
suspended their season due to COVID-19, the NCAA cancelled their March Madness
tournament for the first time since its inception in 1939 (NCAA, 2020). This cancellation took
place after several contingency plans had been developed, with some advocating playing games
without outside fans and limited spectators. The hesitancy to avoid cancelling the tournament at
all costs is understandable, given that March Madness typically generates tens of millions of
viewers, and additionally over $1 billion in television advertising revenue which the NCAA and
its member institutions benefit from yearly (Young, 2021).
With a substantial amount of money set to be made, as well as the increased revenue
streams through the legalization of sports gambling in several states, the 2021 tournament was all
but guaranteed to take place in some form. The tournaments for both men and women took place
despite many college campuses being closed in March 2021, with even more operating in
reduced capacities, trying to contain outbreaks (Saul & Hubler, 2021). The NCAA drew
inspiration from the NBA, which in October of 2020, completed their season by moving to a
remote “bubble” where teams were isolated in hotels for multiple weeks and subjected to
frequent COVID-19 testing with protocols for removing those who were infected. The NCAA
athletes had a bubble of their own for both men’s and women’s teams, but even in similar
scenarios, gender inequities which had been a critique of the NCAA for decades resurfaced.
Women’s basketball players and coaches exposed disparities in training facilities, equipment,
and accommodations which went viral on social media (Sullivan, 2021).
The 2021 NCAA Division I championship tournaments served as a microcosm of what has been
perceived as wrong with the NCAA’s version of intercollegiate sports for decades: overemphasis
on the importance of sports, prioritization of commercial gain over student academic interests,

3
gender inequity, and perhaps most saliently, exploitation of athletes who are not compensated
(Nocera & Strauss, 2018).
Notably absent from the 2021 March Madness tournament were any teams from the Ivy
League. The same conference that took the lead in cancelling their tournament in March of 2020,
had decided in the fall of 2020 to stop all winter sports for the 2020-21 season, citing concerns
over rising rates of coronavirus (Brassil, 2020). In a vacuum, this course of action was
commendable. The decision to not participate in the tournament was an exemplary sign of
progress, a Division I Conference placing the health and concern of athletes at the forefront
instead of the revenue that could be generated from participating in the tournament. However,
upon deeper examination, these same Ivy League Schools over 100 years ago, were largely
responsible for shaping the college sports landscape into what it is today, emphasizing stadiums
and top-tier coaches (Smith, 2011). The 2021 tournament and the unique challenges it presented
also revived the century-old argument on whether collegiate athletes should be paid. In July
2021, only a few months after this tournament, a Supreme Court ruling, combined with pending
legislation in multiple states would prompt the NCAA to allow for the first time NCAA
collegiate athletes to monetize their name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, likely
undermining the NCAA structure of amateurism.
California’s Senate Bill 206, more commonly known as the Fair Pay for Play Act, was
the first piece of state legislation that allowed collegiate athletes to monetize their NIL rights.
Like the Ivy League decision, it was also viewed as a sign of momentous progress. Throughout
this dissertation, however, I aim to complicate these narratives, presenting CA SB-206, and NIL
policies broadly, in a more nuanced light to critically examine these policies in light of three
main concerns: the context of its formulation, the context of NCAA and state policy regarding

4
college athlete compensation, and equity concerns for its implementation and potential impacts
moving forward.
Statement of Problem
The problem this study addressed is the prevalence of uncritical policy narratives, which
can influence policy implementation in inequitable ways. Narratives generally provide a way for
connected events to be shared in ways that communicate meaning. Within the structure of policy
narratives, there are several common characteristics including: policy contexts, plots, characters,
solutions, and generalizability (Shanahan et al., 2011; Shanahan et al., 2013). These narratives
are constructed in aims of a desired policy outcome and are useful because of their ability to
simplify complex information such as policy realities.
There are many factors influencing human beings’ capacity to process large amounts of
information including time, attention, resources, memory, and access to information among
others. Given these constraints, psychology literature informs us that human being utilize
heuristics, or cognitive shortcuts, to process complex information and simultaneously save time
and mental resources (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011; Gigerenzer, 2016; Simon, 1955, 1979;).
Narratives can be utilized as cognitive shortcuts, allowing the target of the narrative to process
the content through the lens of characters, storylines, and settings, immersing the target in the
constructed policy world (Vesselkova, 2017; McBeth & Lybecker, 2018; Vesselkova, 2017). The
construction of policy narratives can be useful given the often-opaque nature of policy processes,
discourses, and documents. However, the utilization of policy narratives to influence public
perceptions of policy, as well as well as policy outcomes should prompt critical questions about
who are constructing these narratives, who are they for, and how they influence how policy
implementation.

5
Current literature on policy narratives seems to be more concerned with the development
and outcomes of narratives, without necessarily addressing some of the structural factors that
influence both. Existing research on policy narratives has highlighted their usefulness in
numerous areas including: coalition building (Chang & Koebele, 2020; Jones & McBeth, 2010;
Vesselkova, 2017), influence of narratives on individual preferences (Jones & McBeth, 2010;
Shanahan et al., 2018), media influence on narratives (Shanahan et al., 2011; Shanahan et al.
2013), as well as the strategic elements behind narratives, there has been far less attention
devoted to analyzing the truthfulness of policy narratives (Jones & McBeth, 2020). Additionally,
there has been a lack of research around how structural elements such as power contribute to the
construction and distribution of policy narratives, as well as the ways in which those narratives
become agents for racialized, gendered, and myriad other forms of oppression (Sievers & Jones,
2020). By failing to critically address these flaws inherent with policy narratives, it becomes
easier to forget that policy realities are socially constructed, and therefore changeable.
Throughout this study, I centered the recent evolution of (NIL) policies recently
developed within American college sports and the NCAA specifically, as context for the
everchanging nature of policy narratives and realities. Additionally, the public-facing nature of
college sports teams in some ways makes them more accessible than the universities they
represent. Therefore, college sports policies simultaneously impact public engagement and
opinion, as well as profitability for colleges and corporate partners.
Within the context of NIL policies, numerous states have developed their own policies,
several with distinct aspects and incentives, however the public discourse around NIL has not
focused on these inherent nuances, but rather what this form of pseudo-compensation will mean
for college athletes at large (Bank, 2020; Leroy, 2022). The discourse around collegiate athlete
compensation has taken place for decades, giving the narratives around these bills a built-in

6
policy setting, as well as characters such as the NCAA and collegiate athletes. By examining
NIL policies, there is an opportunity to examine how policy narratives contribute to the
implementation of these bills, especially as they are unfolding in real time. Additionally, these
policies are the latest evolution on a cultural and scholarly discourse on collegiate athletics
spanning nearly a century.
There is an overwhelming amount of literature citing the ways that collegiate athletics
have been detrimental to the students who participate in them. These harms have been
documented in numerous ways including: how collegiate athletes have been harmed
academically through either fraudulent or restricted academic experiences (Benford, 2007;
Overly, 2005; Sack, 1987) the gendered ways in which female sports have been historically
minimized by media and underfunded by their institutions (Smith, 2000; Ward, 2004), the ways
Black athletes in particular are overrepresented on college sports teams compared to their
presence on campus broadly (Harper, 2019), and how athletes who come from backgrounds with
increased social and financial capital have an easier time navigating the collegiate sports
landscape (Hextrum, 2018, 2020b).
Due to the various landmines collegiate athletes must navigate, it is not surprising that
much of the literature on collegiate athletes themselves has focused on the lived experiences of
collegiate athletes. Topics studied include: how athletes manage their time in both sport and
classes (Beamon, 2008; Hodge et al., 2008), navigate racism and sexism (Beamon, 2015;
Bruening et al., 2005; Hextrum 2020c; Overly, 2005), experienced the recruitment process
(Hextrum, 2020), the extent to which they feel supported by their schools (Beamon, 2008), and
how they have persisted in spite of a college sports landscape that seems largely disinterested
with their long-term success (Bimper et al., 2012).
As a result of these harms within the college sports landscape, it is also unsurprising that

7
another large subsection of the literature critiques the NCAA organizationally for their failures to
protect collegiate athletes and their member institutions, despite having bylaws that specifically
mentioning athlete protection as an aim (McCormick & McCormick, 2008; NCAA 2021-2022
Division I Manual). Numerous athletes historically have aimed to challenge NCAA practices
through lawsuits, strikes, and attempts to form labor unions achieving mixed levels of success in
the process (Custis et al., 2019; Harper & Donnor, 2017; Sheetz, 2016).
The current literature has provided a means to understand athlete experiences, the threats
they face, and their efforts to resist these threats. However, there has not been much literature on
athletes’ perception of policies impacting them, or on their perceptions of the public discourse
around those policies compared to their lived experiences (Sack, 1988). Current literature has
examined the discourses around compensating collegiate athletes including how political beliefs
influence these discourses (Suggs, 2009; Smith, 2010). The relative lack of athlete voice in these
literatures are concerning though, as the athlete is the primary party harmed through exploitation
and is also the primary labor source for universities generating social and financial capital from
collegiate sports. By centering the voices of collegiate athletes in the evolving discourse on NIL
policies, there is an opportunity to shift the policy narrative by emphasizing those whom policy
implementation will be most impactful for.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to examine how policy narratives influence the perception
and implementation of policies. Given the power and influence of narratives, how they are
constructed, by whom are they constructed, and towards what ends they are constructed are
critical questions to ask, especially given the oppressive nature of the American political system.
By highlighting the NCAA’s NIL policies such as California SB-206, the study gleans from the

8
rich organizational and cultural history of collegiate athletics to highlight the ways that policy
narratives have influenced implementation within higher education and beyond, often in ways
that are detrimental to minoritized stakeholders. As will be discussed in chapter two, the NCAA
has a decades long history of exploiting collegiate athletes, often using the law as a shield to
protect them and their organizational practices. These practices include the creation of the
concept of amateurism, as well as the creation of the term “student-athlete” (Fitt, 2009; Southall
& Stuarowsky, 2013). This study takes a critical perspective of NIL policies currently being
framed in public discourses as being transformative to the collegiate athletics landscape.
Currently while some NIL discourses have discussed the nuances of the NIL experience for
athletes across different sports types, NIL policy discourses have been largely discussed in ways
that ignore elements of racialized, classed, and gendered dynamics of navigating the NIL space.
This study will center the voices of collegiate athletes and their perspectives on policy
narratives surrounding NIL policies that may impact how their respective universities will
develop institutional supports for them, as well as how their respective institutions will oversee
NIL compliance. By focusing on the experiences and perspectives of collegiate athletes, it also
allows for new policy narratives to be developed which will center the most marginalized
stakeholders of NIL policies. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide an avenue to
critically approach policy narratives within higher education policy and public policy at large,
while intentionally centering those whom policy implementation is most likely to significantly
impact.
With these aims in mind four primary research questions guide this study on collegiate
athlete’s views on NIL policies:

9
1. What are collegiate athletes’ perspectives on compensation for their intercollegiate sports
participation, name, image, and likeness?
2. How do compensation-related policy directives and social discourses affect collegiate
athletes’ perspectives on compensation?
3. How do collegiate athletes’ perspectives on compensation vary by race, gender,
socioeconomic status, and sport?
4. How do collegiate athletes appraise the financial benefits to themselves and to other
stakeholder groups that profit from their intercollegiate sports participation, name, image,
and likeness?
These questions ultimately aim to assess not only collegiate athletes’ perspectives of NIL
policies and policy narratives, but by disaggregating by race, gender and sport, there is also a
tremendous opportunity to complicate the narratives around collegiate athlete compensation and
propose more nuanced and equitable implementation solutions. Additionally, by investigating
athletes’ perspectives on what other stakeholders such as policymakers, media pundits, coaches,
and their higher education institutions among others, have to gain from NIL policies, there are
also opportunities to examine incentives for developing overly optimistic narratives about NIL
policies.
Significance of Study
Policy narratives are powerful tools that can shape public discourse, as well as policy
implementation. However, the lack of critical inquiry into policy narratives can only lead to them
being deployed in a hegemonic fashion, harming socially minoritized groups. Within the context
of collegiate athletics, the evolution of NIL policies provide opportunity to take a critical
approach to the policy narratives, especially given the extensive history of athlete exploitation by

10
both the NCAA, and its member institutions who benefit from the labor of athletes socially and
financially (Smith, 2010; Fort & Winfree, 2016). This study contributes to the literature on
policy narratives by examining how stakeholder perceptions on narratives can shift as the policy
is being implemented in real time, while also highlighting the ways structural forms of
oppression can impact the development and dissemination of policy narratives. The current study
can also serve as a bridge between the fields of policy narrative research and critical policy
analysis (CPA).
While the field of critical policy analysis has expanded greatly to discuss ways in which
the policy process is socially constructed, value-laden, and bears responsibility for policy
outcomes (Bensimon & Marshall, 1997; Diem et al., 2014; Apple, 2019), little CPA research has
specifically focused on the role of policy narratives in the implementation process. Additionally,
the current study can add to the literature on collegiate athletes. Although there is an extensive
amount of research on the collegiate sports landscape as exploitative, especially for Black
students and women (Beamon, 2008; Bruening et al., 2005; Demas, 2011; Gayles et al., 2018;
Harper, 2018; Hextrum 2020; Murty & Roebuck, 2015; Van Rheenen, 2013; Smith, 2000; Smith,
2011; Withycombe, 2011), the impending NIL era is an important crossroads for collegiate
sports as they can potentially produce a semblance of equity for athletes or perpetuate the long
lineage of NCAA and corporate greed.
This study is timely, as over 20 states including California have implemented or are
currently discussing passing NIL legislation (Leroy, 2022). Additionally, as the NCAA has
permitted NIL deals for athletes as of August 2021, collegiate athletes are just beginning to
explore the avenues available to them, making this a rich time to hear their experiences prior to
state policy implementation as they can provide essential guidance. Also, given the rise of

11
numerous other pathways to professional sports such as the “G-League” for the National
Basketball Association, for collegiate sports to remain a viable option for athletes, equitable
policy should be imperative for the NCAA and its member institutions. This research aims to
center the collegiate athletes who now have an opportunity to benefit from their labor and will
hopefully encourage higher education researchers to challenge the policy narratives surrounding
marginalized populations and examine the structural and institutional factors contributing to
these narratives.
Key Concepts and Definitions
Prior to beginning a review of relevant literature, it is imperative to explain some of the
key concepts and definitions that will appear repetitively throughout the dissertation, especially
as I have intentionally reframed some commonly understood terms in order to be intentional,
specific, and equitable.
Collegiate athlete- Throughout these chapters I use the term collegiate athletes to refer to
students who play a varsity college sport instead of “student-athlete” which implies the student
aspect of their identity is primarily prioritized. Historically, that has not been true in conception
or in practice (Tepen, 2021; Van Rheenen, 2021)
Collegiate sports- Collegiate sports refer to athletic competitions under the NCAA’s
oversight between higher education institutions that are members of the NCAA.
Policy narrative- I use this term to refer to causal stories that seek to explain how the
policy world works and contains common characteristics such as: clear policy stances, plots,
settings, characters, and policy solutions (Shanahan et al., 2011; Shanahan et al.,
2013;Vesselkova, 2017 These narratives are always developed towards political ends.

12
NIL- NIL refers to name, image and likeness policies which will authorize collegiate
athletes to be compensated for the use of their name and identity as an athlete via endorsement
deals and other paid opportunities such as coaching sport camps, and launching businesses
(Bank, 2020; Bunner, 2021).
Amateurism- Amateurism refers to the tradition where collegiate athletes are expected to
participate in collegiate sports without receiving payment from their universities or outside
parties, otherwise they would be considered as professionals (Shaver, 2015). The amateurism
tradition has historically been used to distinguish college sports as unique, and has only applied
to the athletes (NCAA v. Board of Regents, 1984; Porto, 2016)
Exploitation- Throughout the dissertation I utilize Wertheimer’s (1996) definition of
exploitation which is noted as any occurrence of one party gaining by taking unfair advantage of
another party (p. 82).
Women’s sports- At times I utilize the term women’s sports throughout the dissertation to
refer to proper titles of events or categories listed by institutions. I do acknowledge that athletes
who participate in these sports may not identify as women or subscribe to gender at all, however
this was not the case with any participant within this study.
Equitable Policies- Throughout the dissertation, I refer to equitable policies as ones that
account for historically marginalized populations and policymakers and implementers are held
accountable for policy outcomes in alignment with principles of critical policy analysis (Apple,
2019).
Organization of Dissertation
In Chapter Two, I provide a historical review of collegiate athletics in the United States,
noting how amateurism and commercialization have exploited collegiate athletes. Resistance to

13
this exploitation has led to numerous lawsuits, especially regarding compensation. Additionally,
I examine narratives around compensating collegiate athletes and the evolution of the NIL rights
debate, culminating with the formulation, and passing of California SB-206. Additionally, I
introduce a multipronged conceptual framework drawing upon the narrative policy framework,
critical policy analysis, racial capitalism, and interest convergence thesis to examine the ways
social and policy worlds are connected, value-laden, and inherently reliant on systemic
oppression. The framework also engages principal agent theory and institutional logics
perspective to highlight how institutional actors such as the NCAA are structurally enabled to be
untrustworthy and exploitative based on the power they hold. In Chapter Three, I discuss
methodology and methods, as well as sample selection, recruitment, data collection and analysis
processes, and limitations of the study. In Chapter Four, I discuss the findings that emerged from
the analysis of the various data sources. Lastly, in Chapter Five, I offer a discussion of the
findings given existing empirical research, and provide recommendations for policy, practice,
and future research.
The newfound ability to monetize NIL rights could be beneficial for collegiate athletes if
done critically, with historical and contemporary context in mind. However, these policies serve
as a microcosm of how narratives surrounding a policy can greatly influence its implementation
and whether it grasps equity or exacerbates the existing inequities in the policy space. For NIL
policies, this requires an examination of the context of United States intercollegiate athletics
which I will do in the following chapter.

14
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
The American brand of intercollegiate athletics is unmatched globally in its grandeur. No other
collegiate sporting endeavor in the world commits more resources to stadiums, training facilities,
coaching staffs, and marketing than in the United States (Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Sack, 1987).
NCAA Division I sports generate upwards of 12 billion dollars in revenue through television
contracts and ticket sales, making it the most financially lucrative sporting enterprise in the
United States, including professional sports leagues such as the NBA and NFL (Gayles et al.,
2018).
The commercialization of college sports has led to numerous debates including whether
athletes are exploited (Wertheimer, 1996), whether they should be compensated, the extent to
which athletics have overshadowed academics, and their value to the college experience at large
(Nocera & Strauss, 2018; McDavis, 2018). The popularity and economic power of collegiate
sports highlights the need for higher education institutions to engage with them critically and
advocate for policies that can best serve their stakeholders, most importantly of which, the
collegiate athletes and students on their campuses.
Throughout this review, I argue that the concept of amateurism has been the cornerstone
policy narratives about college athletes has been built upon. Amateurism has been essential to
both the revenue generating process and exploitation of collegiate athletes throughout their
history in the U.S. I trace the historical evolutions of collegiate athletics, focusing on its
increasing commercialization through various mediums over time, as well as challenges to
amateurism via court cases, and how narratives over player compensation have threatened
amateurism. Specifically, I demonstrate how the current NIL discussion can either begin to undo

15
decades of exploitative policies and practices in intercollegiate athletics, or further perpetuate
them at the expense of marginalized athletes generally, and Black collegiate athletes particularly.
Origins of Modern Intercollegiate Athletics (1860s- 1900s)
The origins of modern intercollegiate athletics in the United States can be traced to the
mid-1800s with the earliest recorded event being a sailing regatta between Harvard University
and Yale University in 1852 (McDavis, 2018; Smith, 2000). Sixteen years later the first
intercollegiate football game would take place between Rutgers University and Princeton
University (Peach, 2007; Sheetz, 2016). The early versions of intercollegiate sports looked
drastically different from the contemporary product with students being largely responsible for
overseeing the contests, developing rules for play, organizing game schedules, and fielding
sponsorships (Smith, 2011). During these years, sports were viewed as a means to promote moral
development, physical health and recreation, while teams were viewed as student-run clubs
which had faculty member oversight, as well as competition committees that consisted of
students, faculty, and alumni members (Savage et al., 1929; Smith, 2000; Smith, 2011).
At the beginning of the 20th century, college football saw a steep rise in player injuries,
as well as over 15 player deaths from injuries sustained during games (Peach, 2007; Smith, 2000;
Smith, 2011). Player deaths sparked not only a growing resentment from faculty members
towards to the expanding influence of college sports, but also prompted government intervention
(Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Sheetz, 2016; Smith, 2011). In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt,
himself a Yale alum, organized a call for the review of rules for football with the major
participating institutions including Harvard, Princeton, and NYU (Hextrum, 2020a; McDavis,
2018; Smith, 2011) This conference led to the establishment of the Intercollegiate Athletics
Association of the United States, which in 1909 became the National Collegiate Athletic

16
Association (NCAA), the organization responsible for the transformation of collegiate athletics
into what it is today (McDavis, 2018; Smith, 2011)
Early Years of the NCAA and Increased Commercialization of Collegiate Sports
Currently, the NCAA is a powerful organization overseeing intercollegiate athletics
across the country, consisting of over 1,200 member institutions offering twenty-four sports
across three divisions, with a president, executive council, twelve committees, as well as
numerous conferences with similar structures (Peach, 2007; Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015;
Sheetz, 2016). In its early years however, the NCAA was a largely powerless organization whose
constitution indicated their primary responsibilities were: ensuring competitive balance,
identifying issues in sports to be addressed by independent universities and athletic conferences,
creating rules for games, hosting national championship games (except in football), record
keeping, maintaining competitive balance, and maintaining academic integrity so sports could
coexist with education (Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Peach, 2007; Smith, 2000; Smith, 2011).
As World War I depleted the number of men able to participate in sports, many
institutions reduced funding and emphasis on sports (Smith, 2011). However, the postwar
environment created an increased appetite for entertainment fueled by several factors including:
a desire to see returning war veterans play sports, institutional unwillingness to fund sports, the
increasing number of stadiums build on college campuses, as well as the rise of broadcast radio
and television as mediums (Smith, 2011; O’ Toole, 2013). This increased appetite for college
sports would lay the foundation for an increased commercialization of collegiate sports that
would lead to calls for numerous reforms and would finally provide the NCAA with an
opportunity to assert itself as an authority regarding intercollegiate athletics.
Institutional unwillingness to fund sports programs provided an opportunity for

17
institutions and newly formed conferences to seek out corporate sponsorships to fund their
programs amidst national interest. Newly built stadiums, often offered through the donations of
alumni members (Smith, 2011) served as literal monuments to the commercialization of college
sports, boosting the reputations of institutions that had them beyond what their academic
offerings alone could provide. The in-stadium product was also enhanced by the increasing
pattern of coaches being paid lucrative salaries, also aided by interested alumni (Smith, 2011;
Savage et al., 1929). Salaries of football coaches equaled, if not exceeded, salaries of professors
to at universities such as Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. The early 1920s was a fantastical time to
engage with collegiate sports, but even those who could not attend the games in person would
still be able to engage with college football through the rise of broadcast radio and television,
which offered even more avenues for commercialization in the 1930s.
Carnegie Report and the Outset of Commercial Radio and Television (Mid-1920s- 1940)
At the end of the 1920s, as the stock market collapsed, this period prompted a critical eye
towards public institutions, and collegiate sports was no exception. In 1926, the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching financed a three-year study on collegiate athletics
where they visited over 100 institutions in the United States and Canada conducting interviews
of various stakeholders including alums, coaches, and institutional officials (Savage et al., 1929;
Smith, 2011). The study team was led by Howard Savage and produced a 350-page document in
1929 severely criticizing individual institutions, overly invested alumni, and intercollegiate
athletics collectively. Critiques including the aforementioned stadiums, payment of coaches, as
well as the recruitment of athletes and athletic scholarships (Savage et al., 1929; Smith, 2011).
The report specifically criticized the NCAA for eliminating student leadership and
control of college sports, a sharp deviation from decades prior, as well as for failing to contain

18
the rapid commercialization taking place in the 1920s (McDavis, 2018; Savage et al., 1929;
Smith, 2011). The report concluded with a call for college presidents to lead reforms to rescue
college sports from the evils of commercialization and return to the ideals of amateurism the
NCAA had claimed to value. The report led to loud public backlash, and while several college
presidents did try, and in some cases succeed, in reforming athletics in the 1930s, the leadership
of conference commissioners, especially John L. Griffith of the Big Ten Conference, would lean
even more into commercialization to secure funding, through radio broadcasts.
There was precedent for this as the Pacific Coast Conference in 1932 collectively sold
their broadcast rights to the Associated Oil company for $65,000 for the year, which allowed for
advertisements before and after the game and between quarters (O’Toole, 2013). By this point,
heavy advertisement was common for radio programming, and the NCAA, nor any conferences
had any established rules prohibiting the sale of broadcast rights. By 1936, Yale had also sold
their broadcast rights for $20,000 to the Atlantic Refining Company, another oil company (New
York Times, 1936). As had happened in almost every other facet of college sports to date, after
Yale sold their broadcast rights, many other schools followed suit, and the NCAA also officially
decreed it was permissible to do so, citing it could allow struggling university programs an
opportunity to bring in additional funding (O’Toole, 2013). While the Big Ten did not receive
their broadcasting network until the 21st century, Griffith was a key figure in leading discussions
on radio broadcasting for college sports. These discussions would lay the foundation for
discussions on conference-wide sales of media rights, which would drastically increase towards
the end of the 1990s (O’Toole, 2013; Sanderson & Siegfried, 2017). Approaches to radio
broadcasting would also provide the blueprint for navigating television broadcast rights from the
1940s onward.

19
The Rise of Television and NCAA Power (Post-World War II-1988)
The years following World War II had a substantial impact on the growth of college
sports, accentuated by the increasing widespread nature of television. After World War II, there
was a dramatic increase in the population the United States, and more specifically, there was
larger access to higher education. This was partially fueled by government support for military
returning to college through programs such as the G.I. Bill and various home loan programs
which notably excluded Black families at large (Gross, 2017; Rothstein, 2017; Sanderson &
Siegfried, 2017; Smith, 2000). The expansion of higher education allowed for more students to
attend institutions, enabling athletic programs to develop more devout fan bases.
There were several attempts at reform in the 1940s, largely initiated by college
presidents. These reforms also failed, largely because college sports had grown far beyond the
scope of college presidents to manage. This growth led to increased, although not at all
overwhelming, calls for a regulatory body to oversee college sports (Nocera & Strauss, 2018;
Smith, 2011). The NCAA attempted to become this regulatory body by introducing a Purity
Code in 1946, later known as the Sanity Code in 1948, which had six pillars that would govern
intercollegiate athletics as an amateur endeavor: (1) amateurism; (2) institutional control of
athletics; (3) same admission standards for athletes and nonathletes; (4) banning off-campus
recruitment; (5) need-based financial aid; and (6) only competition with those who agreed to the
rules (Nocera & Strauss; 2016). The Sanity Code passed in 1948 and was added to the NCAA
constitution, although problems immediately developed. The NCAA only had seven full-time
staff members committed to enforcing the Sanity Code and violations were numerous, leading to
its overturn in the early 1950s (Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Smith; 2000; Smith, 2011).
At the onset of the 1950s, the introduction of Walter Byers as the new NCAA president

20
signaled a new era in intercollegiate athletics, one marked by more explicit control by the
NCAA. Byers worked for the Big Ten Conference while the Sanity Code was discussed,
implemented, and ultimately abandoned and observed critiques to the code and college athletics
collectively (Nocera & Strauss, 2018). At the time the NCAA was harshly criticized was for
being both unable to adequately respond to the rapid commercialization of the time, and also
being too forceful in attempting to enforce policy. Byers was tasked to address this
commercialism through enforcing amateurism, as well as challenging the expansion of
television.
Enforcing amateurism in the early 1950s landscape required addressing the rise of
recruitment and point scandals which had occurred in the decade prior (Nocera & Strauss, 2018;
Smith, 2000). In a 1952 scandal where two University of Kentucky basketball players were
found guilty of point shaving, Byers suggested all other NCAA teams boycott their games with
Kentucky for the following season (Nocera & Strauss, 2018). The threat of boycott, and
subsequent losses of earnings for Kentucky, proved to be an effective tactic and demonstrated
that the NCAA did in fact have power to enforce its codes through its oversight (Nocera &
Strauss, 2018; Smith, 2011). The threats of ineligibility encouraged smaller institutions who saw
the NCAA as a checks and balances system, preventing schools with powerhouse programs from
doing as they wished. Byers was also instrumental in developing rules during this period
affirming amateurism including eligibility requirements, the creation of the label “studentathlete” and expanding the number of rules and enforcement protocols (Nocera & Strauss, 2018;
Smith, 2011). Additionally, Byers would demonstrate the newfound power of the NCAA through
the navigation of increased television exposure.
The expansion of television which was a byproduct of the economic progress of the

21
times, was not initially embraced by higher education institutions and the NCAA at large. Many
institutions feared the rise of television would lead to lower live attendance, at a time where
ticket sales where the primary source of revenue generation for most schools (Nocera & Strauss,
2018; Sanderson & Siegfried, 2018). The NCAA served as a negotiator with networks on behalf
of all member schools, and Byers negotiated the first television rights contract in 1954 with ABC
worth approximately two million dollars (Nocera & Strauss, 2018). Under the new “Television
Plan” the NCAA dictated that there would be one game per week broadcast on national
television on Saturday afternoons, with each school allowed a total of five appearances
maximum over a two-year period (Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Sanderson & Siegfried, 2018).
Schools that complained over this plan were threatened with exclusion from competition and
television appearances altogether. This plan, along with the maturation of the Baby Boomers
born post World-War II, another population boom and increase in access to higher education
allowed for even more NCAA prosperity throughout the 1960s and 1970s (Nocera & Strauss,
2018; Sanderson & Siegfried, 2018; Smith, 2000). Despite the numerous issues that would
plague college sports in the following decades including integration and gender equity concerns,
what was certain, unlike in decades prior, was that the NCAA would be the sole authority
addressing all things concerning college sports.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the NCAA continued to grow in power, as intercollegiate
athletics continued to grow in popularity. The television contract signed for $2 million in 1954,
was worth over $16 million in the 1970s (Nocera & Strauss, 2018). With the increase in
television exposure also came increased opportunities for television sponsorships. By the late
1970s and into the 1980s apparel companies such as Nike and Adidas would become the largest
sponsors of college sports, offering contracts to coaches and higher education institutions alike

22
(Nocera & Strauss, 1976; Sanderson & Siegfried, 2018). During this time, the NCAA faced two
significant, yet contradictory criticisms: that it was failing to deal with the ever-increasing
commercialization of college sports, and that it was being too harsh in exercising their regulatory
powers (Smith, 2000). In 1978, there were hearings with the United States House of
Representatives that prompted discussion of the NCAA’s hearing protocols and enforcement
policies, which prompted slight reforms but did nothing to curve the NCAA’s power. Two court
cases discussed in the Supreme Court in the 1980s, would significantly impact the NCAA’s
authority: NCAA vs. Tarkanian (1988), and NCAA v. Board of Regents (1984).
Although the latter court case temporally, NCAA v. Tarkanian concretized the standing
of the NCAA by establishing that it was not a state-based actor, and thus did not have to provide
legal protections such as due process of the law. The University of Nevada- Las Vegas (UNLV)
men’s basketball program had been under investigation by the NCAA for recruiting violations
after a drastic increase in UNLV’s winning from prior years. The outcome of the investigation
held that UNLV had committed 38 recruiting violations, with 10 by Tarkanian specifically
(NCAA vs. Tarkanian, 1988). The NCAA then threatened UNLV with potential sanctions, unless
Tarkanian was removed from the program. UNLV ultimately decided to suspend Tarkanian
instead, following which he sued for violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NCAA, stating since they were a private
organization, and not a state actor, they did not have to provide full due process of the law
(NCAA vs. Tarkanian, 1988). This ruling provided the NCAA legal justification for carrying out
their investigations of various violations as they saw fit, while also establishing a level of
uniqueness for the NCAA as far as the law was concerned. At this point the NCAA had 960
member institutions, therefore establishing this autonomy legally was significant (NCAA vs.

23
Tarkanian, 1988). However, with NCAA v. Board of Regents (1984), the NCAA would see the
undoing of the television plan that had been extremely lucrative for them.
From the beginning, the NCAA’s “Television Plan” had dissenting institutions who felt
the plan restricted how much they could make on the grounds that broadcast rights were
intellectual property of the institutions, a point similar to early arguments regarding radio
broadcast rights fifty years earlier (O ‘Toole, 2013; Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Smith, 2000). In the
late 1970s, a group of colleges including the University of Oklahoma and University of Georgia
formed the College Football Association (CFA) which sought to negotiate their own broadcast
deals with networks for game broadcasts (Custis et al., 2019; Smith, 2000) After reaching an
agreement with NBC, the NCAA threatened sanctions for any CFA members who complied with
the contract. The University of Oklahoma and University of Georgia sued the NCAA under the
Sherman Antitrust Act, citing the “Television Plan” restricted trade. The Supreme Court
ultimately ruled against the NCAA, which allowed individual institutions, as well as conferences
to negotiate their own broadcast deals. The Regents case also highlighted that the NCAA could
have unreasonable rules that restrained trade. Arguably, the more far-reaching impact of the
Regents case was dicta from Justice John Stevens who legitimated in the majority opinion that
preserving amateurism was a legitimate reason for the NCAA to implement restrictive rules, as it
made collegiate sports a distinctive product citing the following:
“[T]he NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football— college football. The
identification of this ‘product’ with an academic tradition differentiates college football
from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be
comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the
character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid, must be required to
attend class, and the like.” (Board of Regents vs. NCAA, 1984)
The dicta in the majority opinion from Justice Stevens would be foundational for NCAA
defenses for decades to come, constantly reinforcing the ideals of amateurism in the face of ever-

24
growing commercialism and new media opportunities (Neimeyer, 2015; Shaver, 2015). The
notion of amateurism is synonymous with collegiate athletics and has spurred numerous court
cases. In the next section, I will present an overview of amateurism, its connection to
amateurism, as well as the challenges, and various forms of exploitation inherent to amateurism.
Amateurism as Foundational to NCAA Identity
It is impossible to tell the story of intercollegiate athletics in the United States without
discussing amateurism, and the story of amateurism cannot be told without discussing elitism.
The Oxford dictionary (2021) defines amateurism as: “the practicing of an activity, especially a
sport, on an unpaid rather than a professional basis” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2021). In many
discourses glorifying the virtues of amateurism, ancient Greek society and the original Olympian
athletes are referred to as the ideal amateurs. The ancient Greeks, however, were allowed to be
compensated, and in many cases were compensated well for participating in sporting events with
rewards up to multiple years’ wages (Fitt, 2009; McCullough, 2014).
The version of amateurism seen today in American collegiate sports can be traced back to
19th century Britain. Wealthy young men were sent to elite boarding schools and played sports
which were viewed as a luxury, valuable for preparing “well-rounded gentlemen” for leadership
positions (McCullough & Subketkaew, 2014, p.1035; Moyer, 2015; Porto, 2016). The
gentlemen-amateur sports tradition had restrictions that excluded “professionals”; in this case
individuals who performed manual labor, as it was assumed they would an unfair physical
advantage over amateurs (Moyer, 2015; Porto, 2016). Upon intercollegiate sports’ arrival to the
United States, unsurprisingly early participants and sporting powerhouses were from Ivy League
schools such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. The amateur tradition scoffed at the idea of being
compensated for sport and this attitude was foundational for NCAA amateurism rules.Within the

25
NCAA bylaws, the principle of amateurism as defined as follows: “Student-athletes shall be
amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated primarily by
education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived. Student participation in
intercollegiate athletics is an avocation, and student-athletes should be protected from
exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises” (NCAA 2021-2022 Division I Manual,
p.3).
As the NCAA has outlined the clause of amateurism, the bylaws ironically mentioned the
protection of collegiate athletes from professional and commercial enterprises. Some of the
defining characteristics of the NCAA’s version of amateurism were instituted by Walter Byers in
the 1950s including: protections against playing or signing contracts with professional teams,
prevention of signing agents, the inability to try out for professional teams and then return to
college sports, and ultimately, the prevention of financial compensation for playing a sport
(Porto, McCullough & Subketkaew, 2014; Porto, 2016; Sheetz; 2016). Even the idea of athletic
scholarships was a topic of intense debate in the post-World War I NCAA, with full scholarships
not being permitted until the 1950s (Porto, 2016). One of the key components of the NCAA’s
maintenance of amateurism throughout its history, was the creation of the “student-athlete label”.
While the “student-athlete” label was responsible for collegiate athletes not receiving
compensation, it was also directly tied to the NCAA and its member institutions retaining their
revenue through the tax implications of amateurism. In the 1950s, the death a collegiate athlete
named Ray Dennison, as well as numerous injuries to other players, prompted lawsuits
requesting worker’s compensation, and other benefits (Cronk, 2013; Porto, 2016; Van Rheenen,
2011). Walter Byers responded to these claims by creating the term “student-athlete” in reference
to the collegiate players and embedding the term in official NCAA communication and

26
discourses (Porto, 2016; Tepen, 2021; Van Rheenen, 2013). By labeling the athletes as “studentathletes” it clearly established in court the players were not employees of the school, and could
not receive benefits such as worker’s compensation, a salary, or the opportunity to unionize.
Additionally, this label emphasizes the primary relationship between players and the NCAA as
academic which protected the NCAA and member institutions from the tax implications of
having employees (Fitt, 2009; McCormick & McCormick, 2008; Tepen, 2021). The protections
afforded by emphasizing “student-athletes” allows the NCAA to function as a non-profit
organization, despite bringing in millions of dollars in revenue annually since the 1950s. In the
decades following, just as institutions challenged the NCAA on what they felt were unfair
restrictions with the “Television Plan”, numerous athletes sued the NCAA over the lack of
benefits afforded to them as “student-athletes”. These lawsuits and the debate over the status of
the “student-athlete”, contrasted with the expanding commercialization of collegiate sports have
characterized discourses surrounding college sports for the past several decades.
Amateurism as Foundational to Commercialization
While amateurism laid the foundation for the NCAA, and many of its member institutions to
benefit financially, there was still a stratification of institutions. Towards the latter half of the
20th century, the elite institutions in college sports, in basketball and football specifically, were
no longer the Ivy League schools. Perennial athletic powerhouses were gradually increasing to
include schools from the Southeastern Conference (SEC), Big Ten Conference, as well as West
Coast Schools such as UCLA and the University of Southern California. Increasing stratification
allowed these marquee institutions and athletes to benefit while others were left out. Towards the
latter half of the 20th century, individual athletes, as well as institutions, and staff members

27
would sue the NCAA, aiming to maximize whatever revenues were possible from the
arrangement of amateurism, or otherwise attempt to break from it altogether.
Court Cases Challenging Amateurism
Many of the lawsuits challenging the NCAA in the late 20th century were argued under
the Sherman Antitrust Act, which aims to protect against monopolies. The Sherman Antitrust
Act, established in 1805, is inherently capitalist, as it aims to promote competition and protect
free markets; to prove antitrust violations, plaintiffs must demonstrate harm to themselves and
the market (Neimeyer, 2015; Shaver, 2015). For brevity, I summarize the major takeaways of
only five of those cases.
Athletic Compensation-McCormack vs. NCAA (1988)
The McCormack v. NCAA case followed Tarkanian v. NCAA, where the NCAA had
suspended the Southern Methodist University (SMU) football program in 1987 after they
exceeded restrictions on student compensation. A group of SMU alumni, football players, as well
as cheerleaders sued the NCAA alleging that their restrictions on compensation violated antitrust
law and were akin to price-fixing (McCormack vs. NCAA, 1988; Neimeyer, 2015; Shaver,
2015). Additionally, the plaintiffs also noted these restrictions were preventing SMU from
attracting revenue from games, as well as donations from fellow alumni (McCormack vs.
NCAA, 1988). Citing the dicta from Justice Stevens in the Regents case, the Supreme Court
decided that the restrictions on player compensation were necessary to preserve amateurism and
were thus procompetitive. The importance of McCormack lies in that it establishes the various
actors impacted by revenue generation of college sports, with only the NCAA being positioned
to distribute those benefits. This case did not include coaches, however, Law vs. NCAA almost a
decade later would see coaching compensation addressed.

28
Coaching Compensation- Law vs. NCAA (1998) and Hennessey vs. NCAA (1977)
In 1998, a class action lawsuit filed by several Division I Basketball coaches alleged the
NCAA had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by implementing a rule restricting the annual
compensation of some Division I coaches. A similar lawsuit had been filed over 20 years ago in
Hennessey v. NCAA where the plaintiffs challenged a rule the NCAA had implemented trying to
limit the number of assistant coaches a sports program could have (Hennessey vs. NCAA, 1977.)
The court ruled in the favor of the NCAA in Hennessey, highlighting the purpose of the
restriction was to prevent the exacerbation of differences between successful and unsuccessful
programs (McDavis, 2018). In Law however, the court ruled against the NCAA, citing the
restriction on coaching salaries served no procompetitive purposes and was an unfair restriction
of trade.
These cases highlight one of the numerous double standards of collegiate athletics; while
the compensation of the athletes could be restricted to promote competition under the guise of
amateurism, the compensation of coaches cannot be restricted, despite their participation in the
same amateur enterprise. The economic freedom these coaches have allows them to pursue
lucrative contracts at the collegiate level. For a collegiate athlete who desires to pursue such
lucrative contracts, one primary option is to pursue a career in professional sports. This process
is wrought with confusion regarding eligibility however, which was addressed in numerous
lawsuits including Banks v. NCAA.
Eligibility Concerns- Banks vs. NCAA (1992), Oliver vs. NCAA (2009)
Following an injury to Notre Dame football player Braxton Banks, he chose to sit out a
year to allow his body to recover. By the time he returned, he had lost his starting spot and
decided to pursue a career in the NFL, which involved hiring an agent. By hiring an agent, Banks

29
forfeited his future eligibility to play NCAA sports according to the bylaws of amateurism
(Banks vs. NCAA, 1992; Neimeyer, 2015; Shaver, 2015). After Banks was not drafted, he
applied to play football again at Notre Dame and was denied. Banks sued under Sherman,
claiming these eligibility restraints were unfair. The court ruled against Banks, citing the
NCAA’s eligibility rules were in line with necessary restraints to preserve amateurism, although
there was a dissenting opinion from a judge questioning the legitimacy of amateurism’s
relevance (Banks vs. NCAA, 1992; Neimeyer, 2015).
The question of hiring agents was addressed again in Oliver v. NCAA (2009). The
plaintiff in this case, was Oklahoma State pitcher Andrew Oliver who had hired an agent and
enter the Major League Baseball (MLB) draft while also being enrolled at Oklahoma State. MLB
rules allowed for this, while NCAA bylaws did not and upon finding out about this Oliver was
suspended. Oliver sued under Sherman and won. The court decided the NCAA’s defense of
amateurism as a means of preventing athletes was not procompetitive and could expose athletes
to further exploitation by commercial enterprises (Neimeyer, 2015; Oliver vs. NCAA, 2009).
The idea of amateurism providing opportunities for exploitation as mentioned in Oliver
has been a critique of the NCAA for many decades. There are numerous avenues for
exploitation, especially given the composition of many revenue generating teams consist of
largely Black players, who are largely underrepresented on their campuses (Harper, 2018). The
amateur tradition was not built with Black, poor, or female athletes in mind, which makes the
critiques of the NCAA a commentary on both amateurism and elitism.
Exploitation Under Amateurism
One semantic strategy observed throughout the literature when discussing amateurism
and exploitation was to provide a specific definition of exploitation. Some have defined

30
exploitation as any situation where the economic value of an individual is greater than their
wages (Berri, 2016). Others argue exploitation occurs any time one party gains by taking unfair
advantage of another individual (Wertheimer, 1996), with some authors distinguishing between
consensual and mutually beneficial exploitation (Miller, 2011; Van Rheenen, 2013). Employing
the Wertheimer (1996), definition of exploitation, in this section I give a brief overview of three
forms of exploitation commonly discussed in the literatures regarding collegiate athletes:
knowledge-based, gendered, and racialized.
Knowledge-Based Exploitation
Knowledge-based exploitation is meant to capture instances of athletes who are exploited
based on things they may not know, or in the case of academics, things they may not be given
opportunities to know. Much of the exploitation rooted in knowledge throughout the literature is
linked to class-based differences. Much of this exploitation takes place prior to athletes arriving
on campus to play for their respective institutions with processes such as recruitment playing a
factor in athletes receiving inside knowledge. Hextrum’s (2018) research highlights athletes from
backgrounds where caregivers can afford to pay for college camps, privatized skill training, or
take unofficial campus visits are more likely to be privileged in the recruitment process.
Additionally, young athletes who have the means to participate in programs such as the Amateur
Athletic Union (AAU) in basketball, various seven-on-seven football leagues, or attend prep
schools where they have access to commercially sponsored camps frequented by college coaches
and recruiters also have advantages (Associated Press, 2019; Dalton, 2016). Athletes in these
scenarios can leverage social and financial capital to increase their chances of accessing college
sports, while those who don’t face severe disadvantages.
Once these athletes arrive on campus however, they are still subject to knowledge-based

31
exploitation continues through the signing of forms, such as Form 08-3a which sign away
athletes’ NIL rights both during and after their time in college (Kaburakis et al., 2012; Neimeyer,
2015). Many students are not entirely aware of what these forms entail, nor are they given
recourse on participation if they choose not to comply with said forms (Kaburakis et al., 2012).
During their time on campus, many athletes across all three divisions report feeling sports is their
primary job, spending on average 30-50 hours on their sports per week in season including
practices, travel, and recovery, despite NCAA bylaws placing restrictions at no more than 20
hours (Porto, 2016; Shaver, 2015; California Senate Bill 206).
From an academic perspective, this presents scheduling conflicts as athletes may not be
able to sign up for courses in their desired majors and may be steered into more athletically
friendly courses and majors, where professors may be more partial to them due to their status as
athletes (Benford, 2007; Roebuck et al., 2014; Van Rheenen, 2013). These practices ultimately
harm those who were failed by their K-12 schools prior to college and harms athletes in their
post-athletics careers unless they cultivate the capital to navigate the campus environment.
Specifically, athletes who come from low-SES backgrounds may be especially harmed under
amateurism’s rules as they may have been excluded from opportunities to have developed this
capital prior to arriving on campus. Existing class-based literatures highlight the experiences of
athletes, as well as the influence of structural influences such as amateurism, yet do not
necessarily comment on policies or court cases perpetuating it. Another population harmed by
amateurism are female athletes who face exploitation based on capitalism, patriarchy, and racism
in the case of Black women.

32
Gendered Exploitation
From the 1870s until the 1970s, women’s sports were largely under women’s control
through organizations such as the Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW)
and women who taught physical education (Smith, 2011). In women’s sports there were few
explicit mentions of competition as it was viewed as inappropriate, and there was a specific aim
to keep commercialization out of women’s sports (Smith, 2011). However, the combination of
Cold War fears and the introduction of Title IX in 1970, led to an increased, yet severely
inequitable incorporation of women’s sports into NCAA offerings.
Title IX was enacted in 1972 with the intention of pursuing gender equity and banning
gender discrimination in educational programs, as well as other areas including career education,
employment, and sexual harassment (Sheetz, 2016; Smith, 2000). Prior to Title IX’s enactment,
female athletes received virtually no athletic scholarships or funding in athletic budgets, however
the law called for schools receiving federal financial assistance to equitably invest in women’s
athletics (Smith, 2000; Smith, 2011; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 1972). Title
IX measures this equitable investment by accounting for: (1) student interests and abilities
competition wise, (2) providing athletic benefits and opportunities through factors such as
equipment, scheduling opportunities, and athletic facilities, and (3) financial assistance such as
scholarships (Smith, 2011; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 1972).
Despite the good intentions of Title IX, NCAA officials were initially hesitant to embrace
Title IX and sought to exempt revenue generating sports from it, citing the lack of revenue
women’s sports bring in (Fort &Winfree, 2013; Scott, 2017; Smith, 2000; Smith, 2011). The
echoes of this hesitancy can be seen in the treatment of women’s sports today. They are
inequitably funded in coaching staffs and facilities, receive insufficient media attention, and have

33
their athletic achievements trivialized (Hextrum, 2020b; Smith, 2011; Ward, 2004; Withycombe,
2011). This is exemplified by the fact that Women’s Division I Basketball Tournament was not
allowed to use the March Madness Trademark until the fall of 2021 (Sullivan, 2021). Black
women also face intersectional forms of exploitation as they are largely concentrated in fewer
sports, are largely under researched, and they also face increased criticisms based on racial
stereotypes and sexualizations of their bodies (Bruening et al., 2005; Withycombe, 2011). As
Title IX increased opportunities for women’s sports, most sports offered were “country club”
sports such as golf, field hockey, lacrosse, and rowing, which Black youths are frequently less
exposed to (Hextrum, 2020b). The chronic undervaluation of Black women in college sports also
provides insight into the racialized exploitation of Black and Brown collegiate athletes.
Racialized Exploitation
Historically speaking, in both professional and collegiate sports, Black athletes have
rarely been valued for more than their economic and reputational contributions to the institutions
they play for. While Black athletes have existed in collegiate sports since the 1880s, they were
extremely rare with just 40 total Black collegiate athletes through 1914 (Demas, 2011). The
presence of Black athletes paralleled the numbers of Black students on college campuses overall,
with virtually all Black athletes attending all-Black schools in the South through World War II
(Demas, 2010; Smith, 2011). The integration of college sports took place gradually from the
1940s through the 1970s, a period after which, revenue generating sports such as basketball and
football saw revenue increases of over 8,000% (Demas, 2010; Murty & Roebuck, 2015). While
there were far more Black athletes after the 1970s, Black athletes have faced numerous
challenges in their on-campus experiences.
Academically, Black athletes have historically been failed by their institutions in

34
numerous metrics. In previous decades, the NCAA did not reveal their collegiate athlete
graduation rates disaggregated by race, gender, and sport until pressured to do so by the United
States government (Smith, 2011). However, it is now widely known Black collegiate athletes
collectively have lower graduates than other student-athletes, as well as the general
undergraduate population (Beamon, 2014; Cooper et al., 2019; Gayles et al. 2018; Harper, 2018).
Historically, Black athletes have also been exploited with the constant fluctuations in eligibility
requirements. The NCAA has shifted eligibility requirements to be exceptionally low for
collegiate athletes, with abysmally low GPA and/or standardized test scores requirements via
policies such as Prop 48 (Beamon, 2014; Benford, 2007, Cooper et al., 2019; Overly, 2005;
Smith, 2011). These policies resulted in many students being admitted who were failed by their
K-12 school systems, making their already stressful collegiate experiences more difficult (Gayles
et al., 2018; Van Rheenen, 2013).
In classroom situations, Black athletes are also more likely to deal with racialized
stereotypes about their academic abilities and are less likely to be taken seriously by peers and
professors, resulting in increased feelings of sociocultural isolation and exploitation on campus
(Armstrong and Jennings, 2018; Beamon, 2014; Comeaux, 2018; Murty & Roebuck, 2015; Van
Rheenen, 2013). Black athletes were also more likely to report feelings of succeeding despite
their institutions, especially regarding career ambitions, which they felt their universities did not
always value given scheduling conflicts (Beamon, 2014; Beamon, 2008). While Black collegiate
athletes face academic exploitation under amateurism’s rules, they are also disadvantaged by the
lack of Blackness in powerful positions in collegiate athletics.
Harper’s 2012, 2016, and 2018 reports on Black male student athletes and racial
inequities found that at Power 5 universities particularly there is a dearth of Black leadership.

35
Harper’s (2018) report highlighted Black men compose less than 12% of the head coaches for
both football and basketball, while composing 15% of athletic directors at these institutions, and
none serving as athletic conference commissioners. Practically, these statistics indicate a lack of
potential allies Black collegiate athletes can turn to and speaks to a structural exclusion of Black
men in meaningful positions within the college sports ecosystem.
Lastly, perhaps one of the most inconspicuous forms of racialized exploitation is that
there is a lack of research on other minoritized collegiate athlete groups. There is little
information on the experiences of Latinx, Asian American and Pacific Islander, and Indigenous
athletes’ experiences, especially in the revenue generating sports. As is the case with female
sports, the silencing of these marginalized groups in the literature constrains the narratives that
can be shared about amateurism and its exploitative impacts in collegiate sports.
The various forms of exploitation under amateurism mentioned here highlight that in
large part, collegiate athletes are not necessarily benefitting from the amateurism arrangement as
much as they could or should. While numerous alternatives to amateurism have been proposed, a
recurring theme in those proposals is allowing for athletes to be compensated to improve their
campus experiences.
Narratives Around Paying Collegiate Athletes
Policy narratives regarding the compensation of collegiate athletes has been an intense
topic of discussion in sports media broadly for the past several decades, especially with the
prevalence of legislation such as McCormack v. NCAA and White v. NCAA. Myriad arguments
have been made both in favor of, and in opposition to compensation. Some of these discourses
have focused on institutional interests such as maintaining amateurism, while other critiques
have addressed values such as racial and gender equity.

36
In Opposition of Compensation
The most popular narratives regarding the opposition towards compensating collegiate
athletes hold that paying athletes would uproot some foundational element of collegiate sports,
whether it is in commercial appeal, oversight processes, or daily functioning. These rationales
largely serve the institutional interests of the NCAA and its member institutions and uphold the
values of amateurism.
Threats to Commercial Appeal and Amateurism
The dicta from NCAA v. Board of Regents (1984) which stated that amateurism is a
valuable aim that distinguishes collegiate athletes from professional sports has been utilized by
researchers, journalists, and university stakeholders alike to oppose compensating athletes. These
opponents argue the public is predominantly opposed to paying athletes because it would
decrease the commercial appeal of college sports: watching amateurs who play for “the love of
the game” as opposed to professionals who compete for paychecks (Gustin, 2015, p.158;
Mondello et al. 2013; Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Wallsten et al. 2017). As a result of being paid,
some argue that athletes would be disincentivized to be students and would dedicate more time
to sports than academics to increase their earning potential. (Gustin, 2015; McDavis, 2018;
Nocera & Strauss, 2018).
Critics of compensating athletes also argue that the athlete is already being compensated
through their scholarship (Nocera & Strauss, 2018). This critique ignores the renewable nature of
scholarships, with multiyear scholarships only being offered within the past decade, as well as
the fact many athletes are not on full scholarship (Comeaux, 2018; Nocera & Strauss, 2018)
Another threat to commercial appeal is the idea that compensating athletes would lead to
a competitive imbalance, where certain schools would be able to offer more to athletes than other

37
schools in terms of athletic experience, ultimately winning more at the expense of less successful
schools (Garthwaite; 2020; Nocera & Strauss, 2018). Arguments regarding threats to commercial
appeal note paying athletes would decrease the popularity, and revenue generation of college
sports, ultimately harming fans, players, and universities (Gustin, 2015; McDavis, 2018;
Mondello, et al. 2013; Nocera & Strauss, 2018).
Threats to Non-Revenue Generating Athletes
Athletes in non-revenue generating sports (also known as Olympic sports) and women’s
sports are noted as those who would be harmed by paying athletes. This argument is largely
based on appeals to equality. Since these sports are not as financially lucrative, it is argued it
would be unfair to not pay them at all, and also unfair that they are paid less than their
counterparts in revenue generating sports (Garthwaite et al. 2020; McDavis, 2018; Nocera &
Strauss, 2018). These arguments characterize non-revenue generating athletes as “true”
amateurs, threatened with disinvestment in their sports because of paying revenue generating
athletes. Specifically with women’s sports, Title IX concerns are raised as Title IX calls for
equitable investments which could complicate pay structures (Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Scott;
2017). The question over whether to pay athletes equally or equitably is one of numerous
arguments made about the lack of practicality of paying college athletes.
Lack of Practical Enforcement
Critiques of the impracticality of paying collegiate athletes largely center around
questions of implementation. Several arguments include: the inability to standardize pay scales
across different sports, institutions, and conferences (Kitko, 2017; Nocera & Strauss, 2018), tax
implications of compensating athletes (Kissika-Schulze & Epstein, 2014), and the impracticality
of having oversight of player earnings across sports and conferences (Nocera & Strauss, 2018).

38
These opinions ultimately propose that since it would be difficult to implement change, the best
course of action is to maintain the status quo. These arguments, however, are contrasted by
advocates who see compensating athletes as a means to increase equity and commercial appeal
while reforming or removing amateurism.
In Favor of Compensation
Proponents of compensating collegiate athletes argue that doing so would only be fair
given the excessive commercialization of college sports at the highest levels, providing a
potential pathway to equity, while not undermining the appeal of college sports. These
arguments largely center around the flaws of amateurism as currently constructed and the ability
to reimagine a fairer version of collegiate sports.
Current Flaws of Amateurism
The idea of the popularity of college sports being largely based on the amateur status has
been largely overstated. Increases in college access, income, and exposure to college sports on
television and various other streaming platforms has been more responsible for cultivating
fanbases for collegiate sports teams and the revenues that accompany the fandom than
amateurism (Sanderson & Siegfried, 2018). Proponents of paying athletes argue that the
increases in revenue have become too large for amateurism to be considered a justifiable
rationale for restricting player income. From 2006 to 2016, Football Bowl Subdivision (FBSDivision I) schools saw an increase in revenue from $4.5 billion to $8.5 billion (Garthwaite et al.,
2020). Additionally, in 2017 CBS renewed their contract with the NCAA to air the March
Madness tournament through 2032 at an annual rate of $1.1 billion dollars (Porto, 2015; Shaver,
2015; Young, 2013; Sanderson & Siegfried 2018). The inequalities here are also especially
heinous when reminded of the fact that the revenue generating sports are largely comprised of

39
Black collegiate athletes, many of whom come from low-income backgrounds (California Senate
Bill 206, 2021; Harper, 2018; Mondello et al., 2013). These rebuttals of commercial appeal
arguments highlight that the primary draw of collegiate sports is the emotional connection one
feels to their specific alma maters or local college team, this is especially prominent in
communities that do not have professional sports teams to watch (Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Porto,
2016; Sanderson & Siegfried, 2015).
Critics of amateurism also argue that the NCAA bylaws regarding amateurism, while
being outdated and impractical, also do not apply consistently. Athletes who participate are
subjected to restricted revenues, while coaches and athletic department administrators are not.
Additionally, these restrictions do not apply to undergraduate students on campuses generally; an
undergraduate business or engineering student can launch their own company, sell marketing
materials for it, and generate profits while still being a student (Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Porto;
2016). Even athletes in Olympic sports can receive compensation for their participation in sports
like tennis and swimming while still being considered amateurs (Fitt, 2009; McDavis, 2018).
Lastly, critiques of amateurism highlight that it does not serve its intended purpose in
intercollegiate sports. The competitive balance narrative the NCAA perpetuates is not a reality,
as in both men’s and women’s sports, there is a lack of parity with Power 5 programs typically
competing for national championships; in men’s basketball alone only 13 teams have accounted
for over half of all Final Four appearances (Berri, 2016; Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Peach, 2007).
This lack of competitive balance exacerbates the stratification of talent and resources in college
sports, while also creating an environment for black markets with boosters, agents, and team
officials competing for recruits (Fitt, 2009). However, those who favor compensating collegiate

40
athletes have also devised numerous ways to improve the current college sports landscape in
ways that honor academics, as well as financial equity.
Reimagining Amateurism
Despite the flaws inherent to amateurism, those who advocate for reforming college
athletics to benefit the athletes academically, have identified that it is both possible and
necessary. Some have argued for changes to the NCAA bylaws, which are voted upon by
member schools, to amend the definition of amateurism (Fitt, 2009; Tepen, 2021). Under these
new definitions, amateurism could be defined as a full-time student in good standing who does
not play for a professional team. It is argued changing the bylaws to permit compensation would
reduce the amount of Sherman antitrust lawsuits and would reflect the contemporary reality of
college sports (Neimeyer, 2015; Shaver, 2015). Additionally, numerous options for
compensation have been proposed including: an Olympic model where revenue is set aside in
trust funds for athletes, which can be accessed during or after competition (Sheetz, 2016; Young,
2013), trust funds for athletes deferred until after graduation (Cronk, 2013; Gilbet, 2016; Gustin,
2015; Young, 2013), revenue sharing plans with funds potentially going to low-income
communities athletes may come from (Mondello et al., 2013; Sheetz, 2016), legislative
approaches where exploitative facets of amateurism are challenged incrementally (Bank, 2020;
Moyer, 2015), letting conferences and universities establish their own rules (Tepen, 2021), and
lastly allowing open market forces to dictate compensation (Neimeyer, 2015; Nocera & Strauss,
2018). Other approaches include attaching compensation to academic incentives, or offering
course credits (Brown, 2014). All of these approaches and alternatives to amateurism prompt a
narrative shift in how collegiate athletes are framed, in hopes of making the student-athlete a
valid concept, while also allowing them to benefit from the revenues they generate.

41
Discourses surrounding payment of college athletes reflect political and racial values in
the United States, these discourses have impacted court cases, as in Regents, as well as statebased legislation. One manifestation of the discourse around collegiate athlete compensation can
be seen in the evolution of the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights discourses, culminating
with California’s Senate Bill-206, more commonly known Fair Pay to Play Act.
NIL Rights and the Current Collegiate Sports Context
The debate over NIL rights centers around the rights of collegiate athletes to monetize
their identity for profit. Under previous NCAA bylaws athletes were permitted from doing this
and would suffer penalties including loss of eligibility for using their identity as an athlete to
promote products, obtain internships, or any other form of financial gains in the name of
amateurism. Perhaps the most important event impacting the development of NIL rights for
athletes is O’ Bannon vs. NCAA (2009).
O’Bannon vs. NCAA
In 2009, former UCLA basketball player Ed’ O’Bannon after recognizing himself in a
NCAA college basketball video game sued both the NCAA and the premier college trademark
licensing firm CLC under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The U.S District court of California ruled
against the NCAA, citing they violated the Sherman Antitrust Act through their control of
collegiate sports and manipulation of amateurism to meet their own needs over time. The court
also dismissed the dicta in Regents as a rationale for preventing athlete compensation (Neimeyer,
2015; Sheetz; 2016; O’Bannon v. NCAA, 2015).
Additionally, the District court also proposed alternatives to the lack of compensation
including placing revenues in trust funds, stipends up to the full cost of attendance from revenues
and allowing athletes to benefit from third party endorsements (Neimeyer, 2015). The NCAA

42
appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court, citing amateurism as a defense for the
restrictions, which also ruled against the NCAA. Following this decision, the NCAA appealed to
the Supreme Court which denied hearing the case. As a result of the Supreme Court’s denial, no
substantial remedies for NIL compensation were instituted, beyond certifying that institutions
could offer students scholarships up to the full cost of attendance, which was already being done
(O’Bannon vs. NCAA, 2015). The O’Bannon case, however, did allow for more lawsuits to be
filed on grounds of anticompetitive policies, allowing for states such as California to develop
their own solutions for compensating athletes.
California Senate Bill 206
Even prior to the O’Bannon decision, the state of California had been taking steps to
address the inequities within college sports at the highest levels. In 2012, the state had passed CA
Senate Bill 1525, commonly known as the Student Athlete Bill of Rights which required schools
generating over $10 million annually in revenue to provide collegiate athletes with scholarships
up to the cost of attendance in the case of sports-related injury or illness, while also paying their
medical premiums (California Senate Bill 1525, 2012). In 2013 California also introduced HR3545, commonly known as the Collegiate Student Athlete Protection Act, to the United States
Congress. While the legislation did not pass, it would have required all public institutions to
award their athletes five-year scholarships, with schools generating over $20 million in revenue
to provide an annual stipend of $3,600 above the cost of attendance (HR Bill 3545, 2013) These
bills, along with O’Bannon, established California as a significant player in collegiate athlete
compensation discourses, laying the groundwork for SB-206.
In February 2019, Senators Nancy Skinner and Steven Bradford introduced CA SB-206,
which, beginning in 2023, would allow all Division I athletes at public and private four-year

43
institutions to monetize their NIL rights through endorsements or other ventures if their contracts
do not conflict with existing school contracts (California Senate Bill 206, 2021). The bill also
prevents the NCAA or institutions from excluding an athlete from compensation due to
monetizing their NIL rights and lastly, allows for athletes to have representation in navigating
NIL (California Senate Bill 206, 2021). The bill passed unanimously and was immediately
criticized by some schools, the NCAA, as well as the Pacific-12 conference, although it was
supported by numerous professional athletes and critics of the NCAA (Moyer, 2018; Tepen,
2021). As of now, at least 25 other states have similar pending legislation (Bunner, 2021).
While the bill empowers athletes to secure their own compensation, it does have
shortfalls as it does not allow the universities to pay the athletes directly, international students
cannot be directly compensated in the United States without jeopardizing their visa status, and
some argue the loophole of not violating team contracts detracts from the law’s significance
(Bank, 2020; Peck & Oliver, 2022; Sethi et al., 2022). Critiques aside, SB-206 has undeniably
shifted the college sports landscape since its passage a few years ago. However, its impact was
accelerated by the Supreme Court ruling in Alston vs. NCAA, which prompted NCAA changes
to policy in the summer of 2021.
Aftermath of SB-206 and Future Implications
On June 30, 2021, the Supreme Courted ruled unanimously against the NCAA in Alston
v. NCAA. The court found the NCAA once again violated the Sherman Antitrust law by
preventing member institutions from providing athletes with educational benefits such as laptops
and internships. While the case was not directly about NIL rights, it was a sign of a shift in
perspective on the NCAA and amateurism as noted in the opinions written on the case, which
again dismissed the power of the Regents dicta to justify amateurism. Justice Brett Kavanaugh in

44
particular, provided a scathing rebuke of the NCAA in his opinion stating:
“In my view, that argument is circular and unpersuasive. The NCAA couches its
arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot
disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any
other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut
cooks’ wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law
firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services
out of a ‘love of the law’…” (Alston vs. NCAA, 2021)
Nine days following the Alston ruling, the NCAA board of directors passed a ruling stating that
athletes in all three divisions would be able to monetize their NIL without restriction, pending
state legislation (NCAA.org, 2021). This ruling, which took effect in July 2021 also
recommended athletes to report all income earned to their institution and was notably labeled as
an interim policy (NCAA.org, 2021). These two rulings reflect a monumental shift in the
narratives on amateurism, as well as the discourse on collegiate athletics. These rulings
highlighted that the NCAA, while powerful, is not a legislative body and is thus subject to the
law, which can be equitable, if critically crafted to ensure equitable implementation.
The history of collegiate athletics is characterized by elitism, exploitation, and
subservience to commercialized interests. There is no reason to believe that the implementation
of NIL policies will be any different if legislators and the NCAA are allowed to conduct business
as usual. In the following section, I present a conceptual framework accounting for critical
perspectives of policies, policy narratives, and the institutions that promote them.

45
A Conceptual Framework Towards Understanding Policy Narratives and Discourses
Earlier in the chapter, I reviewed the evolution of intercollegiate athletics in the United
States, paying special attention to how the concept of amateurism has been leveraged to justify
elitism, excessive commercialization, and various forms of exploitation at the expense of
collegiate athletes. I showed that recent challenges to the amateur structure via name, image, and
likeness (NIL) lawsuits and legislation while flawed, have presented opportunities to shift both
the discourses and practices surrounding intercollegiate athletics toward more equitable ends.
Here I present a conceptual framework to examine how the narratives of historical
policies and practices such as amateurism have persisted at the expense of marginalized
collegiate athletes while shaping current discourses on athlete compensation; a visual is also
provided in Figure 1. By focusing on policy narratives, the goal is to understand how the
constructed narratives surrounding policies are equally, if not more important, than the actual
legislation in creating policy realities. In the first section I focus on critiquing policy narratives
and outcomes by incorporating the narrative policy framework (NPF) (Shanahan et al., 2018)
combined with critical policy analysis (CPA) (Apple, 2019), and racial capitalism (Robinson,
2000) to describe the harmfulness of raceless and genderless policy narratives. In the second
section, I provide a framework for critiquing institutional compensation rationales by combining
aspects from the interest convergence thesis (Bell, 1980), principal agent theory (Moe, 1984), as
well as the institutional logics perspective (Thornton et al., 2012) to critique both the espoused
and actualized values of institutional actors such as the NCAA and policymakers. Understanding
the values of these stakeholders is especially important in the context of understanding policy
narratives, as these stakeholders are the most likely to be highlighted in social discourses. By

46
combining these frameworks, I aim to provide a multifaceted, interdisciplinary approach to
critically engaging policy narratives.

47
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework
Conceptual
Framework
Critiquing Policy
Narratives
CriticalPolicyAnalysis
What are collegiate athletes' perspectives on
compensation for their NIL?
Critiquing Institutional
Rationales
Critical Policy Narrative
Analysis Framework
NarrativePolicy Framework
How do compensation-related policy directives
and social discourses affect collegiate athletes'
perspectives on compensation?
RacialCapitalism
How do college athletes' perspectives on
compensation vary by gender, race,
socioeconomic status, and sport?
InterestConvergenceThesis
How do collegiate athletes appraise the
financial benefits to themselves and to other
stakeholder groups that profit from their NIL?
PrincipalAgentTheory
How do the interrelted dynamics of
principals and agents within hierarchical
systems influence policy implementation?
Institutional LogicsPerspective
How do institutions rationalize their
behaviors to themselves, their members,
and those outside the institution?

48
Critiquing Policy Narratives and Outcomes
Examining the potential outcomes of NIL policies require analyzing existing policies
narratives and the outcomes they could lead to. These narratives frame and characterize
stakeholders involved, shaping the policy discourses. To analyze these narratives and potential
outcomes, I employ the narrative policy framework, critical policy analysis, and racial
capitalism.
Narrative Policy Framework
In the current social moment, there is an excess of information available via the
expansion of the internet. However, humans are presented with numerous factors competing for
their attention, influencing their information processing capacity in myriad ways. The narrative
policy framework (NPF), largely attributed to the work of Elizabeth Shanahan, Michael Jones,
and Mark McBeth (2018), accounts for this limited processing capacity and proposes that
humans are more consistently influenced by narratives, as opposed to expert-based information
especially concerning complex societal problems (Jones, 2018; Shanahan et al., 2018;
Vesselkova, 2017). Under the NPF, narratives are defined specifically as stories with temporal
sequences, unfolding in a plot, containing dramatic moments, symbols, and archetypal characters
(Jones & McBeth, 2020). These archetypal characters often include heroes who fix problems,
villains who cause them, as well as beneficiaries and opponents (Shanahan et al., 2018).
Additionally, the framework also identifies various strategies utilized to influence narratives
including manipulating perceptions of who benefits or is harmed, as well as manipulating the
perception of who are considered powerful or weak parties (Shanahan et al., 2013). Despite
originating as a primarily quantitative framework, NPF has expanded over time to embrace
qualitative methods such as content analysis and critical policy analysis (Jones & Raedeli, 2015).

49
The NPF is guided by five core principles for analyzing policy narratives: (1) meaningful
parts of the policy reality are socially constructed; (2) social constructions create different policy
realities, but the variations are bounded allowing for stability over time; (3) narratives have
specific and identifiable structures; (4) narratives operate at three interacting levels, micro
(individual), meso (group), and macro (cultural and institutional); (5) narratives play a central
role in how humans think and communicate (Jones, 2018; McBeth & Lybecker, 2018; Shanahan
et al. 2018; Vesselkova, 2017). These core assumptions acknowledge that the policy creation
process is value-laden. These values inform the narratives and discourses shared within policy
spaces, and in who disseminates these narratives.
Data sources for obtaining and analyzing narratives are informed by the three levels of
anaylsis: micro, meso and macro. NPF studies at the microlevel seek to understand how
narratives influence individual preferences, cognition and decision making, while meso-level
studies examine how groups construct policy narratives and their effects on the policy process.
Lastly, macrolevel NPF studies examine how change or stability in cultural and institutional
narratives shape public policy (Jones & McBeth, 2010; McBeth et al., 2007; Shanahan et al.,
2018; Vesselkova, 2017). Applications of NPF have covered policy narrative impacts on a
variety of local, state, and national policy issues including school choice policies (Chang &
Koebele, 2020; Ertas, 2015); immigration policies (McBeth & Lybecker, 2018); local water
policies in Detroit (O’Donovan, 2018); oil fracking in New York City (Gottleib et al., 2018); and
national differences in COVID-19 responses (Mintrom et al., 2021).
The NPF has been utilized historically to analyze how policy narratives are understood at
a variety of levels. In studying the NCAA’s collegiate athletic compensation policy, the benefits
of applying NPF extend across all three levels. Macrolevel analysis could evaluate the

50
persistence of narratives surrounding amateurism and its ability to influence court decision as in
the Board of Regents case. Meso-level analysis could examine the NCAA and conference
rationales for constructing amateurism bylaws, while microlevel analysis could examine the
perspectives of collegiate athletes, coaches, or faculty on how amateurism has impacted the
collegiate experience. Given the various applications of the NPF, there is also an abundance of
data sources for analysis including individual surveys and interviews, focus groups, interest
group data, speech transcripts, as well as historical events and oral histories (Shanahan et al.,
2018). However, despite the numerous applications and strengths of the NPF, the framework
also has numerous limitations.
While the narrative policy framework has a variety of applications across multiple levels,
the framework primarily analyzes the impact of narratives without necessarily critiquing them.
Particularly, while having an emphasis on analyzing the types of actors and characters within
policy narratives, very few studies have examined how power factors into the construction of
characters and policy outcome, which has the potential to ostracize minoritized groups (Siever &
Jones, 2020). Additionally, NPF’s emphasis on the influence of narratives does not include
analyzing the truth or falsehood of said narratives, which also plays a role in policy outcomes
(Jones & McBeth., 2020). Failing to examine the truthfulness of policy narratives leads to
inequitable implementation and upholding of structural inequities that particularly harm
minoritized populations. These inherent limitations of the narrative policy framework require
supplementation by a form of policy analysis that emphasizes the unequal distribution of power
and resources, as well as the impact of policy outcomes for marginalized parties. The NPF would
be complemented by critical theories that examine the mechanisms that produce this uneven

51
distribution of access to power and resources, and one such framework that would accomplish
this is racial capitalism.
Racial Capitalism
Popular narratives regarding the passage of NIL policies have framed these policies as
victories for collegiate athletes, especially in football and men’s basketball, who are finally able
to benefit from a historically oppressive system. However, it needs to be asked who else is
benefitting from these policies. In a capitalistic society where accumulation is highly valued,
inequities are a necessary consequence, and various rationales are created in order to justify these
inequities (Leong, 2013; Melamed, 2015). Racial capitalism highlights the ways in which race is
one of the primary rationales that enable the inequities caused by capitalism by generating social
and economic capital from nonwhite individuals (Robinson, 2000; Leong, 2013; Melamed,
2015).
Racial capitalism emphasizes the ways that nonwhiteness is commodified in order to
perpetuate capitalistic aims, often dehumanizing nonwhite individuals and exacerbating social
differences (Robinson, 2000; Leong, 2013; Melamed, 2015). The theory builds upon ideas
proposed by Black intellectuals such as DuBois’ notion of the global color line (Mir & Toor,
2021). The origins of racial capitalism as a term can be traced to Cedric Robinson and his
essential (2000) work Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. In Black
Marxism, Robinson establishes that both racism and nationalism were essential to the
development of modern capitalism, and race is one of the ways utilized to frame and maintain
social differences needed for capital accumulation. Under these circumstances nonwhite groups
are disproportionately harmed.
Within the field of higher education, racial capitalism has been utilized to examine

52
numerous ways that nonwhiteness is simultaneously commodified and penalized in higher
education. Topics analyzed have included: teacher training programs and their utilization of
nonwhite cooperating teachers (Souto-Manning, 2022), the student loan debt crisis and its’
disproportionate impact on Black students (Mir & Toor, 2021; Mustaffa & Dawson, 2021), as
well as the ways that diversity has been deployed to create a sense of social capital for higher
education institutions, while also serving as a shield against accusations of racism (Leong, 2013).
In the context of collegiate athletics, racial capitalism is suitable for contextualizing the long
history of athlete exploitation within the NCAA, and potential continuation via NIL policies.
Melamed (2015) notes that social separation is necessary in order to further perpetuate
racial capitalism, and within collegiate sports stratification exists on numerous fronts. Collegiate
sports are assigned value and subsequently stratified based on gender, whether or not they
generate revenue for their respective institutions, while also being separated by division type
with Division I sports receiving most of the attention in both research and public discourse. From
a campus experience perspective, collegiate athletes based on their schedules are more likely to
experience social isolation, and during their seasons will spend significant amounts of time away
from campus in order to participate in their respective sports (Beamon, 2014). For revenue
generating sports in particular, which in terms of football and basketball are predominantly
Black, racial capitalism is particularly apparent as revenues from these sports are often used to
subsidize non-revenue generating sports, which are more likely to be populated with white
athletes (Hextrum, 2020b). These sports due to their large marketability also generate social
capital for their respective institutions helping them to improve their public image. Additionally,
in revenue generating sports, there is social separation in terms of the overwhelming whiteness in
positions of leadership such as coaches, athletic directors, and conference commissioners

53
(Harper, 2018). With these factors in mind, racial capitalism is a useful lens through which the
policy narratives of NIL laws can be examined, as it prompts stakeholders to account for how
power and resources are distributed, as well as where capital accumulates and whom for. These
can be helpful questions to ask when examining which companies are providing NIL
endorsement deals, what the terms are, and the distribution of deal types. While racial capitalism
provides a framework for examining the accumulation of capital, attention should also be paid to
how exactly these policies are developed, what their limitations are, and what the consequences
of implementing NIL policies inequitably would be. For these reasons, critical policy analysis is
a suitable framework for further critiquing policy narratives.
Critical Policy Analysis
Traditional forms of public policy analysis present policy in ways that identify issues
with straightforward causes and solutions. The often-credited founder of the public policy field
of study, Harold Lasswell, envisioned doing policy research differently- in a complex,
interdisciplinary fashion that examines both the context of social problems, and how various
parties were impacted by them (Diem et al., 2014; Fischer, 2003). Common characteristics of
traditional policy analysis include: (1) the view that policy reforms are deliberate processes that
can be managed; (2) the assumption that preferences and goals are rational and influence action;
(3) the belief that the knowledge needed for identifying and deciding between policy solutions
and planning for implementation can be obtained and expressed through data collection, (4) and
the view that policies, policies and practices can be decided and resolved through evaluation
(Benismon & Marshall, 2005; Diem et al., 2014, 2019). Critical policy analysis, however, views
the policy process in a more subjective light, echoing the NPF’s view of a socially constructed
policy reality.

54
Critical policy analysis (CPA) examines the relationships between institutions, identities,
and inequalities that structure American society. In contrast to traditional forms of policy
analysis, CPA focuses on (1) the roots of policy contexts and how those developments influence
policy; (2) the differences between policy rhetoric and practiced realities; (3) attention to the
elements of social stratification, distributions of power and resources, and how they influence the
context of policy development and implementation; (4) how knowledge is produced, legitimized,
and reproduced; (5) and are more likely to use qualitative approaches and collaboration to
identify policy outcomes (Apple, 2019; Bensimon and Marshall, 1997; Diem et al., 2014; Harper
et al., 2009). CPA concurs with the NPF on policy realities being socially constructed, and like
racial capitalism, places a clearly emphasizes that power and structural inequities shape interests
of the powerful. These interests are responsible for both the value-laden construction of the
policy environment and who benefits from those constructions.
CPA was developed in the field of education and has primarily been utilized to
understand the relationship between education and its relationship to dominance and
subordination in the larger society, as well as ways to disrupt those patterns (Apple, 2019). CPA
has been deployed to analyze numerous issues including teacher evaluations of education
policies (Aydarova, 2020; Fernandez et al., 2018), inequitable benefits of a bilingual literacy seal
in California (Subtirela et al., 2019), and community college transfer policies across states
(Chase et al., 2014). Utilizing critical policy analysis will provide a framework for analyzing the
potential equity implications of NIL policies, which is especially important given the power
differentials across institutions and actors in the college sports landscape.
Concerning policy discourses and narratives, CPA analyzes how discourses reflect power
dynamics and despite everchanging policy contexts; those with power can frame and deploy

55
policy narratives to oppress and manipulate minoritized groups (Aydarova, 2020; Ball, 2006;
Bromdal et al., 2020; Brewer, 2014; Kennedy-Lewis, 2014). With this emphasis on how
marginalized communities are impacted by policy discourses, CPA has also inspired other
branches of analysis such as feminist critical policy analysis which critiques the influence of
patriarchy and gender inequity in policy analysis (Bensimon & Marshall, 2003; 2005) and queer
critical policy analysis which critiques heteronormativity and queer silencing in education
institutions (Lugg & Murphy, 2014). These branches of CPA highlight the importance of
empowering marginalized people to critique policy processes, while also promoting their agency
to develop their own policy alternatives (Welton & Mansfield, 2020).
Critical policy analysis would be especially useful for examining the history of
amateurism and how it is legitimized to promote inequitable policies, as it would critique
amateurism’s connectedness to elitism as the foundation from which it builds. While CPA is
useful for interrogating the roots and contexts of policy development and outcomes, in terms of
policy discourse specifically, it is necessary to also critique the rationales of the institutions that
enable these narratives and discourses to take place. In the next section, I combine the interest
convergence thesis along with principal agent theory and the institutional logics perspective to
provide a more holistic understanding of institutional rationales for perpetuating policy
narratives, specifically regarding amateurism and NIL rights discussions.
Critiquing Institutional Rationales
Unearthing the exploitative nature of amateurism and the unjust policies it promotes
requires examining the rationales institutions utilize for maintaining amateurism. These
rationales also shape the narratives and discourses surrounding NIL policies. To analyze these

56
rationales, I employ the interest convergence thesis, principal agent theory, and the institutional
logics perspective.
CRT and Interest Convergence
The interest convergence thesis advances the work of critical policy analysis and racial
capitalism by extending rationales as to when and why interests of marginalized groups are
advanced in both policy and practice. Derrick Bell (1980, 2000), a legal scholar, and one of the
key contributors to critical race theory (CRT), proposed the interest convergence thesis. The
interest convergence thesis holds that the interest of minoritized groups can only be advanced
structurally when they align with, or at the very least do not harm, majoritarian interests (Bell,
1980; 2000). Originally, Bell (1980) applied the interest convergence thesis to highlight how
Brown v. Board of Education (1954), while viewed as a landmark victory for Black educational
rights in the face of segregation, could also be viewed as contributing to further southern
industrialization, U.S international credibility, and an American appearance of equality,
especially in a post-World War II context. Bell (1980) also noted that Black Americans had been
challenging segregation via the 14th amendment for decades and had been denied by the courts
until the 1950s and that the Brown ruling still would not protect Black children from
discriminatory policies in schools, nor Black faculty members from losing their jobs. Interest
convergence ultimately calls for those viewing policies to critique whom the policies appear to
benefit and examine what practiced realities and outcomes would be.
The interest convergence thesis has been applied to examine the collegiate sports
landscape before including studies on: the integration of college football and subsequent
academic exploitation of Black football players (Donnor, 2005; Hodge et al., 2008); Title IX’s
impact on Black women in college sports (Theune, 2019); the lack of Black leadership in

57
football and basketball (Hodge et al., 2008); the use of indigenous mascots and symbols for
college teams (Castagno & Lee, 2017), and community college athlete transfer policies (Harper,
2009). Now, I turn to discuss the myriad ways interest convergence could analytically inform
current critiques of NIL policies and their equity implications.
Current NIL state laws, as well as the NCAA’s interim NIL policies allow for collegiate
athletes to monetize their NIL rights. However, they prohibit higher education institutions from
compensating the athletes directly. The interest convergence thesis would highlight that these
policies allow these institutions, as well as the NCAA, the ability to maintain the revenue they
currently generate from college athletes’ labor, and in some cases, grow their revenues further
due to the increased notoriety some of the athletes may generate. These policies create an
additional level of labor for the athlete by forcing them to develop their own monetization plans,
while facing the same level of athletic and academic responsibilities. Additionally, these policies
when viewed critically, can also privilege both individual athletes who enter college with access
to social and financial capital, allowing them to utilize their networks to generate revenue
beyond what their athletic talents dictate they would earn. In this light, NIL policies represent a
convergence of interests as they somewhat respond to athletes’ decades long call for
compensation, while also protecting the image, as well as the financial and commercial interests
of institutions and organizations such as the NCAA.
The interest convergence thesis highlights how the legal system, operating in a racialized,
gendered, and capitalistic society may only be incentivized to advance the interests of
marginalized communities, if they also benefit majoritarian interests. While the thesis is useful in
examining the consequences of law, it is limited by the fact it does not specifically prescribe
remedies for interest convergence. It is also limited in that it assumes singular definitions of

58
progress for minoritized groups, and according to some, diminishes the agency of marginalized
groups in navigating racialized environments (Driver, 2009). To further complement analysis on
how majoritarian interests are enacted and can prevail in policy discourses and narratives,
principal agent theory outlines how decision makers tasked with implementation arrive at the
decision to act on behalf, or despite stakeholder interests.
Principal Agent Theory
Principal agent theory (PAT) derives from the field of economics and accounts for how
decisions are made by policy implementers to serve their constituents (Moe, 1984;). The theory
was developed to examine hierarchical relationship structures, specifically where there are
contractual agreements and exchanges of resources (Braun & Guston, 2003; Moe, 1984). PAT
rests on the relationship between two parties: (1) principals, who typically lack power,
information, and/or agency to make decisions to actualize their own interests, and (2) agents,
who possess the power, and agency to act in ways that advance the interest of principals (Braun
& Guston, 2003; Miller, 2005; Moe, 1984). Examples of principal-agent relationships include
doctors-patients, teacher-students, employer- employees, and player(s)-coach.
Several assumptions are built into PAT including shared common knowledge among
principals and agents, the agent’s level of incentivization as a primary influence on principal
outcomes, as well as asymmetries in both preferences and knowledge held (Braun &Guston,
2004; Miller, 2005; Moe, 1984). Along with these assumptions, there are two main problems
proposed by the theory: first, information asymmetries, which reflect the principal’s
disadvantage regarding the amount of knowledge or power they have. The second problem are
moral hazards, which state that neither the principal nor agent can be sure the other party will act
in ways that would be beneficial to them (Braun & Guston, 2003; Moe, 1984). Moral hazards,

59
however, are typically more of a concern for the principal, as they aim to get the agents to make
the decisions they would if the principal had the power and knowledge of the agent.
The principal agent theory also accounts for the fact that in multilevel institutions, actors
can be both principals and agents simultaneously, which highlight the interdependent nature of
institutions (Moe, 1984). While principal agent theory has been utilized in education research to
primarily examine teachers and their implementations of education policy as principals (Gunn,
2015; Levacic, 2009; Vanhuysse & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, 2009), regarding discourses surrounding
amateurism and NIL policies, PAT could be especially useful in highlighting the interests of
various members of the collegiate athlete ecosystem including collegiate athletes, coaches,
university administrators, and NCAA administration.
From the outset of a collegiate athlete’s career, they are dependent upon numerous parties
to act in their best interests, from recruiters to coaches, athletic directors, medical staffs, and
campus officials such as professors (Donnor, 2005). Under the arrangement of collegiate
athletics, they are primarily principals, and under the arrangements of amateurism they are
further marginalized due to the imbalance of athletic demands and economic restrictions.
Principal agent theory highlights the extent to which collegiate athletes are interdependent on
others, while also highlighting that institutional actors such as coaches and university
administrators are also both principals and agents. Coaches are dependent on both players to
perform athletically, and on athletic directors and university officials for approval and resources
needed to coach. University administrators are also impacted in this arrangement as they are
principals, entrusting players, coaches, athletic department staff, and athletic directors to act in
ways that enhance the value and reputation of the university. They simultaneously are also the
agents that distribute funding via the university budget, and bargain with the NCAA on policies

60
regarding college athletics (Fort, 2016).
The PAT’s strengths are in its ability to highlight the interdependence of institutional
members based on positions in a hierarchy, while also highlighting the vulnerabilities faced by
both principals and agents in contractual relationships. Under the principal agent theory, both
parties are aiming to act in self-interested ways, but require assistance from the other parties.
While not inherently a critical framework, when PAT is combined with frameworks such as the
interest convergence thesis and critical policy analysis, it can reveal the unique vulnerabilities of
socially marginalized populations in hierarchical environments. This is especially true when
those in power act solely in their own interests. While PAT examines the circumstances under
which individual actors may act in their own self-interests, the institutional logics perspective
provides institutional and organizational-level rationales for self-interested action.
Institutional Logics Perspective
Friedland and Alford (1991) outlined that it is impossible to gauge individual or
organizational behavior without societal context. Previous sections have highlighted that
critiquing policy outcomes, narratives, and discourses require attention to the actors and contexts
at multiple, interdependent levels. The multifaceted nature of the collegiate sports landscape
requires similar analysis, and Friedland and Alford (1991) provide a foundation for such analysis
through the institutional logics perspective.
Institutions are material and symbolic social constructions that offer legitimacy to social
actions and patterns of behavior (Jepperson, 1999; Thornton et al., 2012). Institutions provide
legitimacy through formal organizations, cultures, and independent authority figures; they also
simultaneously enable and constrain both individual and organizational action (Jepperson, 1999).
In this light, institutional analysis complements the aforementioned frameworks for analyzing

61
policy narratives, discourses, and implementation by highlighting the socially constructed nature
of institutions which shape actions and culture. Thornton et al. (2012) defined institutional logics
as socially constructed, historical patterns of cultural symbols and material practices, including
assumptions, values and beliefs, by which individuals and organizations provide meaning to their
daily activity, organize time and space, and reproduce their lives and experiences (p.2). By
emphasizing how these logics operate across multiple levels, reflecting social values and policies
embraced and reproduced over time, logics can reveal the priorities of institutions and social
orders. These priorities shape the actions and rationales of those engaged in institutions as well.
While not inherently a critical framework, when the institutional logics perspective is combined
with other methods such as critical discourse analysis, or frameworks such critical policy
analysis (CPA), critical race theory, or racialized or gendered studies of organizations (Posselt et
al. 2018; Ray, 2019; Wingfield & Chavez, 2020), the institutional logics perspective can add
critical historical context and insight on the influence of institutions in developing and
perpetuating policy narratives and discourses.
The NCAA functions as a formal organization that oversees college sports and through
its power provides legitimacy to institutional logics such as amateurism, while also being viewed
as an authority figure in all college sports discourses. The logic of amateurism has been
institutionalized through traditions, court cases, practices such as the creation of the term
“student-athletes”, as well as through sanctions and formal bylaws which member NCAA
organizations and collegiate athletes alike agree to abide by. Policy narratives and discourses on
athlete compensation have been based upon this logic for decades, stifling student athlete
attempts to overthrow it entirely in court, again representing how institutions and institutional
logics constrain social action (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton et al., 2012). Furthermore, it

62
can be argued the logic of amateurism also serves more covertly as a logic of exploitation,
specifically as it relates to institutional and organizational practices harming marginalized
collegiate athletes especially (Hextrum, 2020c). These logics should be examined in the
implementation of SB-206 as they will guide institutional policy and practice if new logics are
not emphasized.
Summary of Literature
Implementing any NIL policy equitably requires critically examining the existing policy
narratives and discourses surrounding monetizing NIL rights. Combining the narrative policy
framework with racial capitalism and critical policy analysis serves as a pathway to do this,
accounting for parties being centered and potential outcomes and realities for marginalized
parties, Additionally, providing insight into institutional rationales for decision making is also
imperative for addressing inequities and constructing new realities in college sports. I aimed to
accomplish this by merging interest convergence with principal agent theory and the institutional
logics perspective. This conceptual framework molded my research study design as I aimed to
gauge students’ perspectives on NIL policies in a multidimensional fashion. In the following
chapter, I provide methods aiming to examine how collegiate athletes are impacted by these
narratives and discourses, while co-constructing new pathways where they can be better served
by their institutions, the NCAA, and their athletic experience.

63
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
In the previous two chapters, I addressed the significance of policy narratives and how
they shape policy realities, as well as how they are constructed and their significance regarding
collegiate athletics and NIL policies. Additionally, I outlined how developing and implementing
equitable NIL policies requires critiquing existing policy narratives and discourses surrounding
collegiate athlete compensation while also examining institutional and organizational rationales
for restricting or enabling compensation. To accomplish this, I reference frameworks such as
critical policy analysis, narrative policy framework, and racial capitalism among others. As I
emphasize the socially constructed nature of policy processes, this third chapter examines
methodologies used to conduct this study surrounding the narratives and discourses of NIL
policies as perceived by collegiate athletes. Utilizing qualitative inquiry to gather collegiate
athletes’ perspectives on the amateur athletic experience, I conducted a phenomenological study
of collegiate athletes utilizing focus groups, video elicitations, as well as a learning activity
(Creswell, 2013: Henry & Fetters, 2013). I also provide details on data collection, analysis
methods, and role of the researcher.
Rationale for Qualitative Inquiry
Qualitative inquiry emphasizes how societal members or groups attribute meaning to
problems (Creswell, 2007). Given this dissertation examines policy narratives which are socially
constructed, qualitative inquiry seemed appropriate here as they speak to questions of how and
what, especially with focus group interviews being utilized as a method. Qualitative inquiry also
acknowledges the ways in which researcher biases and experiences inform the development of a
study, including the data analysis portion, which I will explain further in the role of researcher
section. Additionally, qualitative inquiry allows for results to be organized thematically which

64
simultaneously allows for the stories of participants to be told coherently. This aspect of
qualitative inquiry also highlights the strengths several frameworks used in the previous chapter,
as well as the choice of instrumental case study as a methodological approach.
Instrumental Case Study Design
This dissertation examined the complexities of policy narratives by analyzing NIL
policies and the impact they have on collegiate athletes and the college sports landscape at large.
For these reasons case study research was an appropriate design approach. Case study research
involves an in-depth exploration of bounded systems (cases) over a period of time and utilizes
multiple sources of information in order to produce thematic reports based on these cases
(Creswell, 2007). The bounded system can reflect a period of time, as well as a social setting or
relational context.
Within case study research, there are numerous ways to examine cases and their
corresponding issues based on the size of the cases, scope of analysis, as well as the scope of
perspectives desired (Creswell, 2007). One such example is of the instrumental case study, in
which the researcher selects an issue or topic of concern and then selects a case that can provide
further understanding on said issue (Creswell, 2007; Stake, 1995). For this dissertation, the
bounded system consisted of collegiate athletes within Division I Schools within one “Power 5”
conference navigating the development and implementation of NIL policies. Through the
multiple data collection procedures which will be elaborated on in the following sections, the
dissertation aimed to not only gain more understanding on the potential implications of NIL
policies as it relates to the collegiate sports landscape, but also to gain more understanding on the
construction of policy narratives and how they influence policy implementation in potentially
inequitable ways.

65
Research Questions
The following research questions guided my research study:
1. What are collegiate athletes’ perspectives on compensation for their intercollegiate
sports participation, name, image, and likeness?
2. How do compensation-related policy directives and social discourses affect collegiate
athletes’ perspectives on compensation?
3. How do collegiate athletes’ perspectives on compensation vary by race, gender,
socioeconomic status, and sport?
4. How do collegiate athletes appraise the financial benefits to themselves and to other
stakeholder groups that profit from their intercollegiate sports participation, name,
image, and likeness?
Data Collection
The data collection process for this dissertation involved focus group interviews, as well
as video elicitation activities, and a learning activity designed to further engage with the research
questions. The following sections will discuss sampling and recruitment strategies, as well as
overviews of focus groups and video elicitation. I will also discuss steps for data analysis.
Finally, I will discuss protocols to engage trustworthiness, limitations of the study, as well as the
role of the researcher and its influence on the dissertation process.
Sampling and Recruitment
For this study I utilized criterion sampling (Creswell, 2013; Patton, 2002). The criterion
sample aims to recruit participants who meet a predetermined set of attributes deemed important
(Patton, 2002, Sandelowski, 2000). Criterion sampling methods also allow for the researchers to
determine variations in the severity of cases and establish greater nuance within the sample
population (Sandelowski, 2000). The criterion for this study was that participants: (1) attended a
4-year college or university, (2) currently is a “student-athlete” or was a student- athlete in the
2019-2020 academic year, (3) a student at a Division I School that is a member of one of the

66
“Power 5” conferences. I recruited 40 students from x different sports, conducting 16 focus
groups in groups of 2-4 via the Zoom platform. Of the 40 participants in this study 21 identified
as women and 19 as men, with none identifying as genderqueer. Additionally, 20 of the
participants identified as Black, 13 as white, 1 as Hispanic, and 6 as multiracial. A more detailed
look at the participants including socioeconomic status, age, scholarship status and other
pertinent information to their participation in the study can be found in Figure 2. I chose to focus
entirely on Division I athletes in “Power 5” conferences as they are the primary targets of athletic
exploitation via events such as the March Madness tournament and the College Football Playoff.
Their perspectives highlighted the implications of NIL policies across NCAA conferences,
although additional considerations should be paid to groups such as community college and
HBCU athletes in future research.

67
Figure 2. List of Participants
Name Sport Class Year Age Race
Socioeconomic
Status Paying for College
Antwon Basketball (M) 2024 21 Black Middle Class Scholarships
Xavier Basketball (M) 2023 20 Black Middle Class Scholarships
Nicole Track (W) 2026 18 White/Hispanic Middle Class Loans
Maya Soccer (W) 2025 18 Black Middle Class Scholarships
Lynn Cross Country 2026 18 Black Middle Class Scholarships/Loans
Ang Soccer (W) 2024 19 Black Poor/ Low-Income Scholarships
Megan Soccer (W) 2024 19 Black Poor/ Low-Income Scholarships/Work
Camille Track (W) 2026 18 Black Middle Class Scholarships
Bruce Track (M) 2025 19 Black Middle Class Scholarships/Loans
Carter Track (M) 2023 18 Black/White Working Class Scholarships
James Track (M) 2026 23 Black Working Class Scholarships/Grant
Rosey Basketball (W) 2023 23 Black Middle Class Scholarships
Michelle Basketball (W) 2023 23 Black Poor/Low-Income Scholarships
Jimmy Swimming (M) 2023 22 White Middle Class
Scholarships, Paying
Out of Pocket
Mario Tennis (M) 2025 20 White Working Class Scholarships
Keith Baseball 2024 19 White Middle Class Scholarships, Paying
Naomi Soccer (W) 2025 19 Black Middle Class Scholarships
Lisa Track (W) 2024 19 Black Middle Class Scholarships
Savannah Basketball (W) 2023 22 White Working Class Scholarships
Andre Football 2023 21 Black Poor/Low-Income Scholarships
Jermaine Basketball (M) 2022 24 Black Middle Class Scholarships
Carmen Cross Country 2026 18 White/Latina Middle Class Scholarships
Nyla Track (W) 2026 18 Black Middle Class Scholarships
Justin Track (M) 2023 22 Black/Asian MIddle Class
Scholarships, Pell
Grant, Parents out of
Cooper Baseball 2025 19 White Wealthy/Affluent Scholarships, Parents
Russ Track (M) 2026 18 Black Working Class Scholarships, Pell
Calvin Football 2024 20 White Middle Class Scholarships
Isabel Swimming (W) 2024 21 White Middle Class Parents Pay Out of
Catherine Swimming (W) 2024 20 White Middle Class Scholarships, Parents
Olivia Track (W) 2024 20 Black Poor/Low-Income
Pell Grant, Student
Loans, Work Study
Shantel Track (W) 2025 20 Black Middle Class Scholarships
Tiffany Track (W) 2024 20 Multiracial Middle Class Scholarships
Samantha Track (W) 2023 22 White Working Class Scholarships
Rosalia Swimming (W) 2024 21 Hispanic Middle Class Scholarships, Pell
Maria Swimming (W) 2023 21 White/Greek Middle Class Scholarships
Victor Swimming (M) 2023 21 White Poor/ Low-Income Grant, Student Loans
Kevin Track (M) 2023 22 Black Working Class Scholarships, Loans,
Forrest Swimming (M) 2026 18 White Middle Class Schoalrships, Parents
Henry Swimming (M) 2024 21 White Middle Class Scholarships
Isaac Swimming (M) 2024 22 White Middle Class Scholarships

68
Data Collection Procedures
Within this study, I primarily utilized focus groups and video elicitation as methods for
data collection.
Focus Groups
Focus groups involve discussions on a specific topic with small groups of people in order
to gauge various perspectives on complex issues, in alignment with the case study approach
(Kreuger & Casey, 2009). The focus group approach allows for participants to guide the
discussion, allow for more naturally occurring conversations, and conduct focused conversations
in a specified amount of time (Hollander, 2004; Morgan, 1988). Conducting NIL discussions in a
focus group context allowed participants to share their individual aspirations and collective
experiences surrounding NIL policies, allowing for sensemaking. The focus group context was
intriguing here as it allowed for athletes to collaboratively develop ideas for policy alternatives
that would be informative for those implementing state NIL policies. Additionally, focus groups
also provided athletes opportunities to build a sense of community through sharing their critiques
and grievances with the NIL process. This collaboration would not have been possible in
individual interviews alone. Some of the questions I asked in the focus group interviews were as
follows:
1. Over the past year a lot has been made of the NIL policies both in specific states like
CA, and the NCAA’s policy. What are your thoughts on these NIL policies?
2. How do these policies change your life as a college athlete?
3. How will these policies impact fairness in college sports?
Additionally, within the focus groups, I utilized an activity that would allow the participants to
give their perspectives on how other stakeholders benefit from NIL policies. Within this activity,

69
participants would be given a fixed amount (for example, $1 million) of hypothetical money to
represent revenues from NIL policies and would be asked to submit a plan to their athletic
director for how a more long-term NIL policy should distribute the funds between themselves,
their respective universities, their respective conference, as well as the NCAA. It is important to
note here, the maximum amount students were allowed to allot for themselves was 60%.
Following this activity some of the debrief questions I asked included the following:
1. What factors influenced your decision in how to distribute these funds?
2. What barriers do you feel would prevent a plan like this from being put in place?
3. How would you want to see NIL policies being implemented so that you the athlete
can benefit from it?
While these questions sought the perspectives of how others may benefit from collegiate
athletes’ NIL activities, the use of video elicitation methods sought their perspectives on public
discourses surrounding NIL policies.
Video Elicitation
Elicitation methods typically utilize stimuli such as photographs, written records, and videos to
prompt participants to discuss subjects in greater detail than in traditional interviews (Epstein et
al., 2006; Henry &Fetters, 2012; Shaw, 2013). Elicitation methods have been utilized for
interventions, in doctor-patient interactions, and have been revered for their ability to improve
triangulation and participants’ voices as experts with a given stimuli (Epstein et al., 2006; Shaw,
2006). For this study, I showed a four-minute video clip of segment from a prominent news show
discussing the impact of NIL policies on collegiate athletes at large. By showing this video I aim
to elicit responses regarding narratives around NIL policies put forth by media and other

70
stakeholders by seeking participant perspectives on the voices framing and perpetuating these
discourses. Some of the questions asked based on the video elicitation were as follows:
1. Where have you heard these NIL policies being discussed by others?
a. Do you agree or disagree with these perspectives?
2. What do you feel others are missing when they discuss NIL policies and how they
impact you?
Conducting these video elicitations in focus groups also allows for increased opportunities for
collective sensemaking, which is essential for conducting a critical policy analysis.
Data Analysis
Lichtman (2006) notes that data analysis in qualitative research is a practice consisting of
both process and interpretation. Numerous other qualitative researchers have agreed that the
analysis process engages in sensemaking around the data and establishing a broader
interpretation (Corbin & Strauss, 2007; Creswell, 2008). For my analysis process, I combined
methods from Creswell (2008) and Lichtman (2006) to properly interpret and analyze the
numerous data sources from this study. The first step of my analysis process was transcribing the
focus group interviews. I utilized an online software program to do this and re-listened to each
transcript audio recording to correct the transcript for incorrect transcriptions due to variations in
dialects and accents, use of colloquialisms, and speed of speech among other factors. Each
transcript was checked several times for accuracy and was downloaded to an encrypted storage
folder for coding purposes.
After obtaining the transcripts, I familiarized myself with the data by reading through
each of the transcripts to get a summative perspective on their contents. In this stage I paid
attention to patterns and various points of emphasis from participants to get a sense of the

71
general breadth of topics discussed in the data. Creswell (2008) suggests in this stage that
researchers notate in the margins of transcripts to capture general thoughts regarding data.
Following Creswell’s recommendation, I also wrote notes within the margins of my
transcriptions as it helped me to gain insights from each individual interview, while also
allowing me to identify areas where my own biases could potentially be influencing my
interpretation of the data.
After my general reading of the transcripts, I then analyzed the participant profile forms
that each participant submitted prior to each interview. These forms helped me to compile
demographic data about the participants that would later prove helpful in the coding process.
Reading over these profile forms provided greater context on who the participants were as in
individuals: their journeys in their respective sports, their educational journeys, as well as their
family backgrounds. These profile forms brought the transcripts to life in a sense by revealing
more about the individuals and the perspectives they brought to the interviews.
The fourth stage of my analysis consisted of analyzing the data submitted for the Padlet
learning activity at the end of each interview. The data from this activity was compiled onto a
spreadsheet and was cross-referenced with the transcriptions and profile forms for accuracy. The
distribution from this activity can be seen in Figure 3. Trends among the Padlet activity data
were noted in a separate document and supplemented the coding process.

72
Figure 3. Padlet Activity Distribution Table

73
Fifth, I looked at the aforementioned data sources and noted general themes that emerged
upon my first glances of the data. These themes were the basis of my first set of codes. Creswell
(2008) states that the coding process organizes the data into segments of text before bringing
meaning to information (p.186). To further organize my data, I utilized Lichtman’s (2006) threestage data analysis process: codes, categories, and concepts. These stages contain six steps,
which are the following:
1. Initial coding
2. Revisiting initial coding
3. Developing an initial list of categories or central ideas
4. Modifying your initial list based on additional rereading
5. Revisiting your categories and subcategories.
6. Moving from categories into concepts (themes).
Using the computer data analysis program NVivo to further organize, run data queries, and
search for specific information, I followed Lichtman’s “Three C’s” analysis process
intentionally. This enabled me to develop a preliminary codebook containing 61 codes such as
“power of platform”, “discourse sources”, “gendered opportunities”, “navigational capital”, and
“international student concern” among others. These codes were used to generate several
categories of data. After three rounds of rereading, revising, and redeveloping categories, I
ultimately utilized 32 codes for my final codebook, with 7 categories of codes that yielded 5
concepts. These concepts allowed for thematic analysis (Nowell et al., 2017), to emerge which
allowed counternarratives to be constructed. These concepts also aided in identifying plots and
characters in accordance with the narrative policy framework. My coding processes was
conducted incorporating the lenses of the numerous theories mentioned in chapter two including:

74
critical policy analysis, interest convergence, racial capitalism, and principal agent theory to
examine how collegiate athletes constructed their perceptions of NIL policies compared to
prevalent NIL discourses. These approaches allowed me to understand better the phenomenon of
NIL policies in the context of current-day amateurism.
Lastly, I utilized reflexive memos to better capture my thoughts following focus groups.
Utilizing memos allows the researcher to reflect on their own interpretations of the data while
also addressing and accounting for personal biases (Birks et al., 2008). I recorded my reflections
via voice memos following each interview to allow for a greater stream of consciousness
processing in the moment and capture emotion that may not be conveyed through the written
word alone. These memos were transcribed and listened to following my readings of transcripts
and following each round of coding to refresh myself of each interview. The memoing process
enabled me to reflect on the focus groups while also addressing my personal biases and some of
the limitations of the phenomenological approach.
Trustworthiness
In producing qualitative research it is essential to account for researcher bias to ensure
that my interpretation of the data reflects the shared experiences of the participants in order to
represent their stories accurately and thoughtfully, especially given that critical narrative
construction is a focal point of the research. In order to accomplish this and demonstrate my
analysis to be trustworthy, I utilized numerous tools for producing trustworthiness including
member checking, peer debriefs, triangulation, in addition the reflexive memo process mentioned
in the previous section.

75
Member Checks
Historically, the experience of collegiate athletes has been characterized by exploitation
from various stakeholders within the college sports landscape, and as a researcher I vowed to not
further perpetuate this exploitation. One way I sought to do this is through inviting the feedback
of athletes throughout the entire study process via member checking. The member checking
process seeks to gain the feedback of individual participants to ensure that the analysis is in
alignment with their lived experiences (Curtin & Fossey, 2007; Stake, 2005). Following each
interview, I sent each participant a copy of the coded transcript and asked for their feedback on
the accuracy of the descriptions within. Given the busy schedules of these athletes, I understood
they may not respond to the request to participate in the member check. While none of them
responded, I wanted to at least extend the offer to further ensure I am helping to further the
perspectives of the athletes in the face of narratives that seek to speak for them.
Peer Debriefs
The member checking process aims to strengthen the study by providing their insights on
the accuracy of the focus group and the interpretations thereof. The use of peer debriefs invited
the perspectives of other’s who are aware of the study including committee members, fellow
program members, and other faculty members, as well as those who may not be aware of the
study to gauge their perspectives. For example, I engaged with former college athletes, as well as
individuals who work in college athletic departments to gauge their perspectives on findings and
activities within the study which provided valuable insight. Engaging in peer debriefs,
particularly with those who have seen the evolution of this study, allowed for feedback on areas
of the study that were unclear, enabling a stronger version of the study to be developed (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988).

76
Triangulation
Triangulations utilizes a variety of information sources to clarify themes, observations
and interpretation of data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 2005). In the current study, I utilized
the money distribution activity to supplement the data from the focus group interviews, profile
forms, and video elicitation. Additionally, I utilized peer debriefers to provide feedback of the
study and how it developed. I also referenced a database I previously developed of news articles
discussing NIL policies as a reference point for policy narratives that may be discussed in the
focus groups. Utilizing triangulation as a strategy for trustworthiness allowed for a more
coherent analysis to be developed from the available data.
Limitations
Acknowledging the shortcomings of any methodology is imperative in conducting
research in any fashion. The case study approach though, I feel allows for a deeper probing of
both collegiate athlete perspectives, as well as the construction of policy narratives as it relates to
NIL policies. However, one of the primary limitations to the case study approach is in
establishing the limitations of a bounded system. By restricting the analysis to primarily Power 5
schools, there are perspectives that were not included within the analysis. All of the participants
in this study came from schools within the same state and NCAA conference. There is a strong
likelihood that NIL policy narratives and experiences vary in numerous ways across NCAA
conferences and state policy contexts. This study also solely examined the experiences of
athletes at predominantly white universities, which does not necessarily reflect the realities of
NIL experiences at HBCUs and HSIs. Additionally, the presence of a researcher has the potential
to influence participant responses, and in the context of focus group there was the potential for
groupthink to occur. While my insistence on researcher objectivity seeks to combat some of

77
these concerns, objectivity stands in direct contradiction to several of the frameworks outlined in
chapter two. There were avenues to center the individual participant experience and perspectives
while also intentionally inquiring about the structural forces shaping their collective experiences
as collegiate athletes, which is where I felt the focus groups were well suited. By utilizing
memos, I sought to account for my own biases and interpretations of data, to emphasize the
participants’ perspectives during the focus groups and in the data analysis process.
Role of Researcher
While memos allowed me to account for my own biases, I also want to acknowledge they
serve a purpose in approaching the research and crafting design. My role as researcher is to
engage with policy to shift social realities while also accounting for how narratives and other
socially constructed phenomenon impact these realities, specifically for people of color. I also
needed to be mindful of the ways that my background and educational experiences influenced
my interest in, and design of this study.
As a master’s student, I attended the University of Southern California to pursue a Master
of Public Policy (MPP), with a specific focus on education policy. Within this program, while I
learned some of the aspects of policy development, and technical expertise needed, I had many
questions on how the inequitable implementation of policies can harm marginalized
communities. I also grew frustrated with the inaccessibility of policy for marginalized
communities, whether due to the language of policy documents, inaccessibility to participate in
policy-making processes, as well as the failures of policy institutions to account for how policy
outcomes will vary based on social status.
These questions led me into my current doctoral program where I wanted to specifically
examine how the ways policies are discussed influence these inequitable implementation

78
practices. Numerous aspects of my identity have influenced my pursuit of this topic, including
identifying as a Christian and believing in both the inherent flaws, and inherent redemptive
potential for man-made institutions, as well as a commitment to living a life pursuing justice and
fairness. Additionally, my relationship with sports has also influenced the process of developing
this study and should be accounted for in the data analysis.
Since childhood, I have engaged with sports at the recreational, professional, and
collegiate levels. I have played and loved organized basketball since I was nine years old. As a
Black male, I formed many close personal relationships through sports, and found a large
representation of other Black males in educational environments where Black males are often
minoritized. I also found personal role models through sports, largely because professional
athletes are among the most publicly visible Black men in America, and the wealth and status
they accumulated were aspirational for myself as a youth, and for many other Black youths.
Additionally, I spent time on a Division I college athletic roster as an undergraduate student.
I spent two years as a practice player on the women’s basketball team at the College of
William Mary in my undergraduate years. Through this experience, I got to witness the demands
of an athletic schedule at a Division I school and seeing the impact it had on the athletes I played
alongside. Additionally, I got to develop relationships with some of the player and learn more
about their aspirations and how at times their experiences as athletes both enabled and
constrained those aspirations. These experiences have shaped my belief in the power of
collegiate sports to facilitate both beneficial opportunities and exploitation, while also bolstering
my belief in sports as a vehicle for conducting social change. There is a long lineage of Black
athletes using their platforms as to promote social change including the accomplishments of Bill
Russell, Muhammad Ali, Serena Williams, and LeBron James in addition to many other athletes,

79
community organizers, and scholars. My hope is to continue in that lineage of utilizing sport for
social change through this dissertation and subsequent works.
Due to my personal experiences, aspirations, and biases, I was aware that I needed to
balance leveraging personal experiences with monitoring my involvement in the focus group
interviews, and I embraced some of the limitations within phenomenology to ensure the
participants’ experiences were primarily driving the narrative construction within this study.

80
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The findings of this study are encapsulated within five noteworthy concepts or themes
that capture collegiate students’ NIL experiences: (1) navigating NIL – collegiate athletes
discussed various experiences, tools needed, and information sources that helped them make
sense of NIL policies and opportunities; (2) NIL benefits- shared experiences about ways in
which collegiate students found themselves being able to benefit from NIL policies, as well as
various factors they felt enabled them to succeed; (3) NIL inequities- participants shared the
numerous ways elitism, sexism, class differences, international student exclusion, and the
general labor required for NIL activities created inequities for various athletes; (4) institutional
impacts- students discussed their attitudes and perceptions of different institutional stakeholders
such as higher education institutions, corporate entities, and the NCAA, elaborating on how these
institutions would benefit from their NIL labor ; and (5) reimagining NIL- collegiate athletes
discussed ways the current NIL landscape could be changed to better benefit themselves.
These findings and excerpts from collegiate athletes were used to highlight how they are
processing NIL policies and the impact the implementation of these policies has on their lived
experiences. Within this chapter, higher education institution names, as well as names of specific
companies, and institution-affiliated NIL resources are intentionally omitted. Additionally,
participants selected pseudonyms to protect their anonymity. These sections are intended to
reflect the relevance to participants’ responses. Also, within chapters sections vary in length,
reflecting the various nuances to each theme and elevated salience some themes had over others.
Additionally, some concepts will overlap with others, yet ultimately these findings reflect the
most noteworthy elements to emerge from the data.

81
Navigating NIL
The first key finding of this study examines how collegiate athletes are navigating the
NIL landscape. At the time of writing, NIL policies are only in their second full academic year of
implementation on college campuses nationwide. The timing of NIL has had various
implications for collegiate athletes based on where they are in both their academic and athletic
careers. Over two thirds of the students in the study were in the third year of their program and
beyond, having spent their high school and early collegiate careers being prepared for a college
sports landscape that no longer exists. Contrarily, the other third of students are entering higher
education institutions adjusting to NIL in real time, along with their elder teammates. This first
theme illuminates the ways that collegiate athletes are engaging in NIL sensemaking through the
ways they analyze the NIL discourses they hear, navigational differences based on their varying
social and athletic circumstances, and their value systems in determining how to engage with the
NIL landscape. Furthermore, this theme reflects on athletes’ lived realities of pursuing NIL
opportunities.
Collegiate Athlete Stressors
Without intentional consideration, it can be easy to overlook that prior to NIL’s
emergence in the college sports landscape, collegiate athletes were already balancing numerous
responsibilities. Many students expressed that time constraints complicated their ability to
engage deeply with NIL. One track and field athlete, Kevin, explained:
So I feel like you know the outside world just thinks that we just sit here and then
just money just comes to us free flowing, we don't have to worry about it. We still
gotta perform for our team, we still have high expectations, we still have to wake
up the crack of dawn, go lift weights on top of that, still go to class, study hall,
mandatory meetings. No, we still have a busy life. So it's not like, you know, this
whole NIL deal is oh, we just sit back collect a check because, I mean, it's only a
handful of people who's really making that money like everybody else, even in
football, and basketball and all these sports. There's only out of those teams,

82
probably maybe three to four, maybe five people make that big of money because
they have a big name.
Many other athletes, across sports, genders, and racial groups echoed Kevin’s sentiments noting
the athletic and academic obligations imposed on them, complicating their ability to benefit from
NIL. Additionally, the realities of varying financial opportunities also factored into athletes’
decisions to pursue NIL opportunities. However, for some athletes’, financial needs pushed them
to seek out NIL opportunities despite their time constraints. Several athletes noted how due to
their academic schedules, they were unable to work jobs to address their financial needs.
Michelle, a women’s basketball player, offered this insight:
I guess they kind of focus on the money aspect of things. And I think there's a lot
more depth to NIL than just, hey, we're going to offer you x amount of money for
you to do this. I think people don't really understand how much of a toll that it
takes on athletes. I mean, we're already so busy. So it's kind of it's kind of
stressful, because if you're in a situation where you feel like you really, really
need the money, and it's like man I have this NIL deal but I'm so tired. I have this,
I have that. It's like that part of it people don't really talk about and people don't
realize that. It's a thing. Like we're still human, we still have basically our whole
days are taken up and then for us to you know, try to have any me time with NIL
deals, is kind of tough. So just that part of the real aspect of not just surface level,
hey, I'm gonna give you x amount of dollars.
While Michelle spoke to both the scheduling and financial pressures facing collegiate athletes,
she also spoke to the realities of these challenges being largely absent from public discourses on
NIL and its impact on collegiate athletes.
Discourse Sources
As collegiate athletes seek to make sense of a rapidly evolving NIL landscape, public
discourses on NIL have served an important role. These discourses highlight what deals other
athletes within and beyond their networks have received, informing potential possibilities for
them. Additionally, these discourse sources, also inform variances in how NIL policies are

83
implemented between states and higher education institutions. The variety of platforms where
NIL is discussed also provides a variety of perspectives for athletes to consider. Antwon, a men’s
basketball player shared:
Policies for me, I've really heard it over like Twitter, honestly, like, I don't really
hear on TV, nor do I really hear it in person face to face conversations here at my
school. Like the only person I really know is like, Okay, if you're an F1 student
with an F1 visa, you can't really do anything in the state of California. Unless
you're on international grounds. That's probably the only policy I really know. But
like, if I were to ever see any NIL deals or policy, it's really coming from Twitter
because something's trending or somebody reposted social media.
Among all students in the study, social media was by far the most reported medium where
athletes observed NIL policies and deals being discussed. For participants in women’s sports in
particular this was especially important, as it symbolized that other women were having success
in their NIL pursuits. In addition to social media however, athletes also mentioned their families,
news media outlets including sports media sources such as ESPN as outlets where they heard
updates on NIL. Additionally, collegiate athletes spoke about their teams as places where they
would learn about NIL, citing checking with their teammates, compliance officials, and others in
the athletic department. Lastly, a few students spoke of classes where they would discuss the
evolution of NIL. These academic discourses were nuanced in that they provided collegiate
athletes with access to a variety of public discourse sources on NIL. One student, Victor, noted:
I've taken like a lot of my sports media classes we've spent so much time talking
about NIL to an extensive degree and we've had podcasts about it, there's all sorts
of outlets are writing articles about it all the way from like, the crappy tabloids
like Daily Mail and TMZ all the way up to huge things like NBC, CNBC, Sports
Business Journal, Sports Business Insider, all that sort of stuff. It definitely feels
like more of a conversation at this point that like that everybody's going back and
forth, because it's so new, like so many, like we haven't seen... we've only been
able to experience what we've experienced so far for a little over a year. And we
have no idea what like the long term effects of it are going to be if there's going to
be any long term effects, whether it'll be positive, negative, positive, negative, for
some sports, positive or negative for other sports.

84
While Victor acknowledges the benefits and perspectives gained from taking courses that discuss
NIL, these also allowed for athletes to engage in conversations with other non-athlete students
and provide a counter perspective to the discourses in the media, which for some students was
laborious. One track and field athlete Russ added:
For me…like talking amongst my peers, and mainly like, in class is a big part of,
where I hear those types of conversations, like people think, ‘oh, yeah, like you're
an athlete. Like, how many deals do you have?’ And I'm like, that's not really how
it works.
Reflections like Russ’s highlight that there are numerous misconceptions that fellow students and
members of the public at large have when it comes to NIL, and these misconceptions are largely
influenced by stories or images they may see in discourse sources such as social media or news
outlets.
Misconceptions
While the aforementioned discourse sources offer several benefits, including increasing
public awareness of local and national NIL policies and trends in a general sense, they often may
fail to capture the nuance of collegiate athletes’ lived experiences. These misconceptions have
the power to shape public perceptions on NIL. When asked what they feel the public
misunderstands about NIL and how it impacts them, responses focused on two primary areas, the
availability of opportunities, and the responsibility required to navigate the NIL landscape.
While media sources are incentivized to highlight the most lucrative NIL deals for
collegiate athletes, the reality is that multimillion deals are not the norm for the vast majority of
collegiate athletes. Despite the lower frequency of these NIL deals, many students noted that
there were opportunities to pursue NIL opportunities, but those opportunities were impacted by

85
several factors both within and outside of their control. Cooper, a baseball player, offered the
following:
I think some people when they see NIL and all these athletes making a ton of
money, like, they might assume that all athletes kind of have the same
opportunities. But that's definitely not always the case. Depending on like, your
brand on social media or this just based on the sport you play even like, like some
athletes are verified, for example, like, that definitely brings more to your brand
and definitely would lead to more NIL deals.
Cooper’s quote brings attention to the realities that NIL opportunities are dependent on factors
beyond athletes’ individual performance such as popularity on social media platforms, and
popularity of their respective sports within their respective local contexts. Many other athletes
echoed these sentiments (the power of platforms specifically will be discussed in a subsequent
theme). Students also mentioned that their institutions choices regarding which sports and
athletes they chose to promote also impacted the availability of NIL opportunities. While these
outside factors highlighted some restraints that athletes may face, especially in Olympic sports
and women’s sports, many athletes spoke to a willingness to promote themselves as much as
possible to obtain NIL opportunities. Students who chose this path spoke to the misconceptions
surrounding what it took to actually obtain NIL deals and fulfill the obligations associated with
these deals.
Several students talked about the misconception that NIL meant they would simply be
getting money that they could do whatever they wanted without any oversight or complications.
They noted the tedious nature at times of navigating compliance offices, as well as accounting
for the different policies from schools. Track teammates Lisa and Nyla explained:
Lisa: I think it will be more so like, what we can and can't do with the money.
Because a lot of the times, we have to, like report everything to compliance. And
one wrong like, if you don't report like a word, you missing like one keyword or
something, it's just a lot of different things that we have to do to make sure that
we're in line with compliance, to make sure that we're like crossing our T's and

86
dotting our I's it just a lot to do in some people just think that it's just, ‘oh, yeah,
they reached out to you because you're pretty’ or ‘they reached out to you because
you have, like you're good in your sport’, but it's like so much more than that.
And even though like I'm grateful for, like, the things that I've done is still like a
lot and like the compliance aspect of it is just draining sometimes. But I mean,
whatever I have to do.
Nyla: Yeah, I feel like they kind of, they don't really see like, I guess the
compliance side of it all. Like, we have to always have talks about just like what
we can and can't do or like, what companies we can't work with. Or like, you can't
have [your school] in your video or whatever you make. So it's like little things
like that, that not everyone really sees. So you just have to be very, like, that's a
go through compliance with everything just to make sure you will be at risk of
losing your scholarship or anything like that.
Lisa and Nyla’s experiences highlight the complications that come with pursuing NIL
opportunities once they are identified. They are tasked to correspond with corporate partners,
maintain constant communication with compliance officials, and maintain an awareness of their
institutional and state NIL policies. Keep in mind, these students are still tasked to perform their
athletic obligations to their team and academic obligations as well. With these myriad
responsibilities, many students mentioned the importance of having supports and place to help
them navigate NIL.
Navigational Capital
Yosso (2005) notes that navigational capital refers to resources, networks, skills and
strategies developed to maneuver through social institutions, particularly institutions not created
with racially marginalized populations in mind. With collegiate athletics and the NCAA
historically being an institution, whose primary commercial objectives have not centered the
collegiate athlete’s well-being or financial prosperity, developing and leveraging various forms
of navigational capital has been critical for students attempting to navigate the NIL landscape.
This is especially true for athletes in Olympic sports, many of whom argued that the institution
of NIL was not designed with them in mind.

87
In addition to leaning on their teammates and social networks of athletes at other
institutions, athletes spoke of navigational capital in terms of: (a) identifying salient questions for
pursuing NIL opportunities, (b) identifying resources at their institutions to help them make
sense of the NIL landscape, and (c) finding resources outside of their institutions to help them
navigate NIL policies.
With the newness of NIL, many students shared concerns of how exactly they could
maximize their opportunities to benefit from NIL, regardless of their sport. Several athletes
shared concerns over figuring out answers to practical elements such as where to look for deals,
which corporate partners are trustworthy, the tax implications of NIL deals, and how to assess
the market for their services. Megan stated the following:
I think another thing that's left out is like, how to like that conversation of, well,
not just how to like navigate, NIL deals, but like, also, kind of knowing how to
determine what you're worth. Like, I mean, I hope to get NIL contracts, but I
just I think that's the one thing that I kind of get nervous about is like,
knowing how to say, ‘these are my rates’ or agree to the rates that they
provide? Because it's like, you know what I mean? That's not really talked
about, like how much you should charge, like, for a reel, like, how much is my
name image and likeness worth? You know what I mean? Because like, you
don't want to get like punked but, at the same time, you want to make money.
Megan’s insights illustrate the need for practical navigational resources for collegiate athletes,
especially as it relates to corporate partnerships. It is sensible, then, that many athletes in the
study looked to their university officials for guidance in this, as both their athletic departments
and various university departments theoretically would have experience navigating corporate
partnerships. In actuality, collegiate athletes shared mixed results with their experiences looking
for institutional resources in navigating NIL. Carter explained:
I think they introduced what you can and can't do, like they kind of lay
down like the base foundation have like, here are the rules, like this is what you
need to follow to like make it work. But I haven't seen a lot of like the
opportunities side come from my university. Really, like I haven't seen a lot of

88
them say ‘oh look, here's like a good way to get started.’ Or here's like good
platforms you could use the kind of like, they’re just like ‘oh, this is what you
have to follow if you get a deal’ but they don't really show how you might be able
to.
Carter notes here the vagueness in team-based capital that was provided to him and his
teammates. While general information on best practices were provided, the specifics were left
largely to the athlete to figure out for themselves. Current NCAA policy does not mandate that
higher education institutions provide NIL education to students, but “strongly encourages” it
(NCAA.com, 2022). Additionally, numerous state policies also do not mandate that these
institutions provide navigational capital for students. Given the lack of policy mandates for NIL
education, several students instead shared ways they became their own advocates, looking
outside their higher education institutions to find the navigational capital they needed.
Collegiate athletes shared outside organizations such as the Black Student Athlete
Summit provided valuable assistance in figuring out some of NIL’s nuances. Ang, a track athlete
who attended the summit recalled her experiences of dealing with institutional officials and what
she learned at the summit:
Me and my sister go to [our school] and last year, they put on Zooms, talking
about [NIL] and stuff, but they weren't really like, ‘you need to sign up for them
and go to them’. And it was during I remember it was during finals week. So, I
wasn't even able to attend, because I was busy with my final. But it wasn't until I
went to Houston... for what is it called... the summit, the Black Student Athlete
summit when I really got a lot of information about NIL, so what I learned at that
summit was just like, you know, apply yourself and kind of get those
answers. So, I literally was just texting my… um, a person on our media team like
asking him, how do we get verified? And how do we and who do I need to, you
know, send an email to or who do I need to get in contact to get help with my NIL
stuff and meet with agents and stuff because the football team is taken care of.
But that's not for all the other sports. So, you kind of have to or what I've been
doing is just you know, I've always been an advocate for myself, so I've just kind
of like literally like trying to get answers on my own from the contacts I have in
my phone. But when school starts, I'm going into the office and being like "who
do I need to talk to"? Because you have to do it. I think if you're not from a sport

89
that is that brings in all the money or whatever I feel like you kind of have to you
know just advocate for yourself but [my school] will help you though if you if
you kind of apply yourself. I don't think they really like reach out to you if you're
not on the football team or basketball team [though].
Ang’s remarks illustrate some of the complications of navigating university officials, especially
for athletes in Olympic sports. Additionally, she illuminates the value of having multiple streams
of navigational capital to draw from. In addition to resources such as the Black Student Athlete
Summit, a few students shared how they were able to utilize agents to help with attaining
navigational capital. Students shared that agents were helpful in answering the practical
questions of NIL, as well as identifying opportunities for them, freeing up preciously scarce for
them. Of the five students who discussed agents being a resource, four of them were Black
students. Naomi and Carmen explained:
I just wanted to like, add, like, for me, personally, like, I signed a [brand]
Partnership, which is like one post and like a reel and assigned to [brand]
partnership. But like, both of those were given to me through will not given to me,
but I earned it through having individual representation. And I think that
my agent was like a core piece in helping me learn about this stuff and
looking out for me individually. But I think that we have a lot of athletes and that
and like not enough people looking out for each individual
Yeah, I actually have like a sports agent for mostly for mountaineering, and I
mountaineer as well, but they also like help with some naming image and likeness
stuff and before like, and I wouldn't be able to have had that it would have had to,
like, kind of get rid of them. So having that's definitely like, impacted me and
my ability to, to just profit off of what I do… They kind of like,
almost do it for me they're like, ‘Okay, yes. Like this is compliant with
NIL rules, this isn't’ and he only get me gigs out or like compliant within NIL.
The experiences of Naomi and Carmen illustrate how having representation can mitigate some of
the variances in navigational capital that students may have as they try to figure out how to make
sense of the NIL landscape and its numerous variances. One of these variances that students
shared the most about is the vast possibilities of financial compensation available through NIL
deals.

90
Deal Variance
While media entities are incentivized to center the most lucrative NIL deals for collegiate
athletes, most are not very lucrative. Several athletes within the study mentioned that their
opportunities for compensation varied in terms of dollar amounts, while also having some deals
that provided compensation through non-financial means, such as meals and merchandise. One
student Keith divulged the following on the nuance of deal amounts:
For me, personally, I feel like, like the value of the NIL deals, like there's just
such a variability between like, you know, like smaller NIL deals and larger ones.
I feel like, at least in conversation, like you kind of just hear like, ‘oh, so we got
an NIL deal’. You don't like hear the details like on what exactly they're getting, it
could just be like a free shirt, or they could be getting $50,000. I feel like that's
one thing people probably don't want to talk about, but I feel like that's one thing
that's kind of undermined.
Keith not only spoke the aforementioned variance in compensation possibilities, but he also
speaks to the idea that within the public discourses on NIL, there is a desire to overlook this
variance in deals. While these differences may be unsettling to outsiders looking in on NIL
compensation, several athletes such as Russ, are aware of these variances in deals, and
mentioned that their motivations for pursuing NIL opportunities were to be able to purchase
extra things they might want:
Um, like, me specifically. I've gotten like a few like, here and there. Like, you
know, I'll get like some protein or like, maybe like 25 bucks or 50 bucks. Which
is great. Like, and it's something that like I wouldn't have been able to do and like
it does, like, really help like that kind of stuff. Like if I wanted to buy like some
shoes and I just had like something where like, I got to make 60 bucks. And then I
can use that to pay for things I want and need I think that's great on my part. But
yeah, like I do, like know people who know how to work it and know how to talk
to brands and all that stuff. And they make a ton of money from it. And I think
it's dope.
Hearing perspectives’ such as Russ’s served as a reminder that these athletes are still college
students, who navigate tensions many of their peers do, such as wanting extra money to buy

91
shoes or hang out with friends. While some of the compensation for athletes can include small,
relatively insignificant thins such as t-shirts, other athletes mentioned compensation in ways that
were truly impactful, such as tuition payments as Samantha, a track and field athlete, explained:
I'm on an NIL deal that I'm getting my tuition paid for. So I was on scholarship
for the first four years, and I'm in grad school. So I'm doing an NIL deal. I'm
getting my school paid for that way. So it's kind of the same, because I get
basically the same things. But I guess if it wasn't for NIL then I wouldn't be on the
team this year, I'd probably would have transferred and took my fifth year
somewhere else. So that's changed my life.
These sorts of NIL deals that provide benefits such as tuition or housing can be monumental in
the lives of student athletes, impacting student’s abilities to remain at school and not incur
additional debt for non-scholarship athletes. These sorts of opportunities are especially critical in
Olympic Sports where the opportunities for lucrative NIL deals can be especially limited.
Olympic Sports
A common critique at the outset of NIL was that athletes in Olympic sports were likely to
be disproportionately harmed by the implementation of NIL. Approximately 83% of the
collegiate athletes in this study were Olympic athletes, and they provided extremely valuable
insights on the nuances of navigating the NIL landscape. Contrary to the narratives of athletes in
Olympic sports being harmed through NIL, the athletes in this study both acknowledged that
they knew their sports would not receive the same attention as revenue-generating sports, while
also speaking to the ways that NIL has generated creative opportunities for them. Some Olympic
sports athletes also spoke to the idea that the idea of making lucrative amounts of money in their
respective sports is not even a possibility at the professional level for their sports, where the
Olympics is the pinnacle of success. In one interview, Victor and Kevin, from swimming and
track respectively, had an insightful dialogue towards this end:

92
Victor: Yeah, for like these Olympic sports, I think I think that they chase more ...
like bettering their athletic selves rather than chasing the bag, you know? Like
the NFL and like football, like so much of that is like, like, you just hear
everybody talking about it, you know, like, ‘Oh, I just want to make that money’,
you know? And so obviously NIL's gonna be huge for that. Whereas when you
approach things from like an Olympic sport perspective, like you never you don't
go into track or swimming like ‘Oh, I'm gonna make millions of dollars doing my
sport one day’ you know, it's more just like I'm doing it for the success, the
competitiveness and because I want to be the best you know, that's not to say
that there aren't like competitive people in football but like, for as much as a
factor money is in football or basketball or something like that, it's as little of a
factor in a lot of Olympic sports.
Kevin: And it's also you know, you could, the way you could get drafted to the
league now, you can get a multitude of people in there. You can't get a multitude
of people to get to make the Olympic team like that's how big of a stretch that is.
So when it comes to that yeah its more of more of... I like it better because you
already know you under the 1% so and plus not all when you make the Olympics
it's not guarantee that you're gonna get paid. Like I know some people who was
professional track athletes, like shoot, for a good bit of their career, they was not
getting paid like you'll see them with the gear, but they wasn't getting no money
so
Victor: A lot of these athletes have to like work full time jobs. While they while
they do this stuff, like I have Olympic swimmer friends who are like literally
bagging groceries in between their practices
Within this dialogue, Kevin and Victor spoke to numerous dynamics of the Olympic athlete
experience including: the difficulties of making it to the pinnacle of their respective sports, the
lack of guaranteed money once reaching the Olympic level, and the love of their respective
sports and competition being the primary reasons some Olympic athletes choose to pursue their
sports at the collegiate level, not giving much attention to the prevalence of NIL opportunities.
Several students addressed some causes for the disparities in these opportunities, while
also sharing the reality that obtaining those opportunities may take some additional work because
of the differences in audience size for their sport. Maya spoke to some the additional difficulties
Olympic athletes face:

93
Yeah, I agree. I would just say like, the one thing is like in terms of sport, just
because like, obviously, some sports, probably just don't bring in as much revenue
as other sports. So it's a little bit harder. Unless you like, a real have a really big
social media presence in that specific sport. So I would say that's something that's
a little bit more difficult in terms of where I am, at least just because of like, my
sport, I guess, is not as popular.
Henry also elaborated on some of the difficulties that Olympic sports athletes face, including
additional work to find opportunities:
I mean, it's kind of, it's kind of hard to see it, like play out a lot with swimming
with unless you're like a super big, super, super big name. A lot of times you kind
of have to go out and kind of search for some of those opportunities rather than
them just kind of be presented to you or like sought out. Um, so I don't know it's
harder it's harder to notice it with some of these sports especially because you're
not choosing a school based on NIL like football and basketball players are doing
right now.
Maya and Kevin both acknowledged that the differences in the platforms of their sports could
result in fewer opportunities for NIL deals unless they were willing to reach out to companies
directly. This phenomenon will be discussed more in depth within the third theme. For now,
though, suffice it to say athletes within Olympic Sports expressed that they needed to do more
work because they felt their sports were viewed as less valuable. The additional work required
to gain NIL opportunities highlighted the ways some students expressed that the NIL space can
be a performative one at times.
Performativity
One of the more disappointing recurring themes of this study was hearing participants
repeatedly mention the ways they felt the NIL space was not for them. Several students discussed
that in order to get deals they felt they had to present themselves in a certain way in order to be
considered marketable to companies. Performing in this way included pressures to spend money
in order to have certain brands of clothing, to appear a particular way physically, even during
competitions. These forms of performance were largely gendered, as participants who played in

94
women’s sports composed virtually all codes for this form of performativity. One student,
Shantel lamented the disheartening nature of the pressures to perform for NIL opportunities:
I'm gonna try to like, free my thoughts, but because I think because I didn't come
up with a lot of money… But I think, I don't know if this is even like, right to
say, but I feel like if I had money, prior to coming to college, I would just spend
that money to like, have the looks, have the platform, so that I can make more
money. But I think because I don't already have the money to be wearing the
the brands and doing all the extra stuff on social media, it almost feels like I can't
make money because I feel like, I'm not super marketable right now. And like
we were talking about earlier, like companies don't choose people to give
them a chance, they choose who already have the platform. I feel like, like, I'm
never gonna get there. Like it's just unattainable. So, it kind of feels like hopeless.
But in the beginning, like when I heard about it, I thought it was really a
huge opportunity. And I was really excited that it was coming into fruition
when I was coming into college, but I think now, I don't know, I don't think I
could keep up in order to have NIL…Yeah, I feel like at this point, the
Instagram models and stuff, it's like, you got to keep up with the trends. Like
you got to have the clothes and the stuff because that's what people want to see.
And then they'll follow you. And then once you have the platform, the companies
will invest in you, but I don't have the resources to get to the point to be
marketable. So I just feel like, I don't know.
Shantel’s experiences were echoed by other women within the study. Further complicating the
performative elements of NIL pursuits for athletes were the ideas that those who would be able
to pay the entrance fees to participate in the NIL landscape were not always necessarily the
athletes who were most successful within their sport. Some students also shared how they had
heard experiences of these types of performativity contributing to tensions amongst their peers’
teammates at other institutions. Beyond the physical aspects of performativity however, some
students also talked about the importance of professionalism and presenting themselves in a good
light to potential brand partners. This too functioned as an aspect of performativity within the
NIL space. Carter provided this insight:
I think one of the things that has changed for us is like how we present ourselves
like online and things like that on social media being like a student athlete and
having this idea that you can receive like funding and like be partners with

95
somebody with like your name, likeness and image, you want your image to be
portrayed in like a good light so that you know, people would want to...
companies and people would want to work with you and help you… so it's with
the newly introduced program with like NIL, it tunes athletes to be a little bit
more formal and like responsible with how they present themselves, like, on the
field and like off the field, or like in the classroom or online.
Carter spoke about professionalism from the standpoint of needing to present oneself in a
particular way in order to be marketable to potential professional partners. Navigating the NIL
space in this way required a constant attentiveness to self-image and how the athlete was being
perceived by others. This element of performativity was also gendered, with only men
mentioning professionalism as an element of performance within the NIL space. Some students,
such as Carter relished the opportunity though, as a means to be able to cultivate skills that could
serve them well beyond their athletic careers. Lastly, collegiate athletes spoke of performativity
also coming from their institutions as they navigated the NIL space. There were numerous
mentions from women and Olympic athletes within the study of their institutions highlighting
them or their sports out a tokenization effort to appear as though they are interested, however
being drastically undermarketed compared to their counterparts in male, revenue-generating
sports. More on the specific gendered dynamics of this will be discussed in the third theme.
Within these feelings of tokenization though, students spoke of an institutional performance of
equity, done almost begrudgingly according to some.
The performative aspects of the NIL space that collegiate athletes discussed provide a
brief insight into the gendered and classed ways that some students must navigate the NIL space
to find opportunities. Some collegiate athletes however, rejected these ideas of performativity
altogether.

96
Values-Based Rejection
Several athletes mentioned due to the work required for NIL and the pressure to perform
at times, there were reasons to reject NIL opportunities, either in specific instances, or altogether.
Within this particular theme, Black students particularly composed two-thirds of the codes for
this theme, which was composed of athletes in revenue-generating sports and Olympic sports, as
well as athletes across socioeconomic statuses. These participants discussed how their personal
values system informed whether they would engage in specific NIL opportunities. Some athletes
such as Michelle referenced their personal pride as a reason not to engage in certain deals, opting
for opportunities to pursue personal passions instead:
I haven't really done many deals just part of it, because I'm not just
going to accept anything. I take pride in what I value, and I'm not just going to do
something because someone's offering me money. So personally, like it hasn't
made a big impact as far as, oh, hey, I just got $50,000, that type of impact, but it
definitely has allowed me to get my name out there and do the things that I love
to do, which I really am grateful for. It just kind of provides you a different
avenue of doing the things that you're passionate for.
In additional to personal pride, some students noted a clash with personal values and their
personalities as a valid reason to turn down NIL opportunities. Andre and Jermaine, from men’s
basketball and football, respectfully, had an insightful dialogue on this topic:
Jermaine: I actually could use the exact opposite of what you said. I absolutely,
like abhor social media, like I literally always have my social media like
disactivated. But then I had got this NIL deal where he was like, Oh, we're gonna
give you this amount of money for literally just posting something I'm like, Okay,
well, then, I, you know, put my social media back on. Like, I now have it up
strictly for, like the intent of making money. But I really just don't like to have
social media like NIL deals that require me to do like, a lot of stuff on social
media, I normally shy away from it. But, I mean, obviously, if it's a lot of money,
then sometimes you just got to deal with it. But yeah for me, I don't like social
media. So a lot of NIL stuff I pass up. Just because it kind of clashes with my like
values, I guess. That's kind of how I approach it.

97
Andre: Yeah, no, I would agree with Jermaine, for sure. Um, I definitely measure
the time factor in terms of like, how much time and labor it's gonna take in order
for me to monetize it? And then yeah, again, what he was saying is like the same
thing. He's like, is this something that's part of my character, it's just something
that like, even if like, the average intelligent person can say, ‘he did this just for a
deal’? Is this something that I still want up here? You know, or do I even want my
name attached to that at all? And that's really it.
Andre and Jermaine spoke to evaluating the worthiness of NIL deals on the grounds of their
personal values, brands, and time investments required to fulfill the terms of the deal. The last
group of students also acknowledged the value of time as a reason to opt-out of NIL
opportunities altogether and to focus their energies elsewhere. Keith and Jimmy elaborate:
Keith: I definitely feel like it impacts it. Especially I think for like lower class people, I
feel like if you're like an elite athlete, you're going to maybe go to a school where you can
find it an NIL deal that'll get you the most amount of money or a higher amount of
scholarship. Personally, for me, it didn't really affect my decision. I feel like I'm around
the middle... somewhere between middle and upper class and I feel like the like I'm at a
point where I can't get like a huge NIL deal so like kind of the miniscule stuff personally,
I'd rather be focusing on my studies and sport rather than, you know, spending time doing
that.
Jimmy: Similar thing I probably am not like at the caliber of athletes, that would really
be making a ton from NIL. So I just I picked up a an internship over this semester
instead, because I figured I'd be making a lot more from that. And I don't have to have
any time consumed from my NIL deal.
Noting their status as Olympic athletes, as well as the importance of academic and professional
opportunities, Jimmy and Keith both chose to forego NIL altogether. The dynamics of opting out
of NIL also cut across athletes in both revenue-generating and Olympic sports. One important
note about this subtheme is that a majority of the athletes who contributed to this were athletes
who were on full scholarship, with the exception, ironically, of Jimmy and Keith. The choice to
opt out of NIL opportunities also reflected the idea of NIL being a distraction, which several
athletes spoke about.

98
NIL as Distraction
Across sports, genders, racial groups, and socioeconomic statuses, many athletes
throughout the study acknowledged the time it takes to invest in NIL opportunities. A subgroup
of these athletes noted that the requirements to engage in NIL could serve as a distraction from
both academic and athletic obligations. While discussing potential ways to reimagine what NIL
could look like, Russ spoke to the tensions of managing NIL opportunities amidst his current
obligations:
Yeah, like, um, I probably say, like, like, it couldn't be small, but like, if we're just paid,
like, even like $10 like an hour, like, it's still like, more than what we would be being
paid. And then I think like, there should be some sort of compensation for doing well in
your sport. So, for track like if like you place that PAC 12 or place at the national meet,
then like you, you could get some sort of compensation, no matter who you are, and no
matter what your platform is. Um, so yeah, I'd say like, right now, like, my main goal to
try and, and make money is to grow my platform, which I think kind of shifts like the
focus from my sport, whereas, like, I could still be putting that focus towards my sport,
and not have to worry about my platform and still be compensated.
Russ’s experiences speak to the complications NIL presents while collegiate athletes are still
expected to perform well within their sports. For this subgroup of athletes, the demands of NIL
gave them pause as to how much time they should be dedicating to NIL given the many
obligations they already have. Some athletes, however, spoke on how NIL opportunities would
distract from the purely fun, competitive aspects of sports as well. Samantha offered the
following:
Nothing really surprised me with the video. I feel like a lot of people are going to be
taking advantage of this, like "nil" stuff. But I think that obviously anything can be like
taken advantage in a bad way. Like, obviously, Paige and these other girls and are like,
using it for their benefit. But I think that a lot of people like, I think before and I tell
everyone, like all student athletes are coming in and like trying to get a scholarship
because they truly love their sport. But I feel like now it's gonna change that to where
like, some people don't even really care that much about their sport, but they just want
to like, stay in it so they can get a bunch of NIL deals and like can be set for life
afterwards. So I think they'll change the way people have that look at just sports and like
the genuine-ness of it.

99
Samantha’s concerns about the “genuineness” of college sports being impacted by NIL, is a
perspective that has been echoed by several critics of NIL from its outset, including various
coaches. While these perspectives were not widely shared across participants, it was important to
highlight the various ways that some students felt about the ways NIL would impact their
experiences as athletes, especially in team sport’s settings where NIL-based distractions could
potentially impact relationships among teammates and team performance. In addition to having
to navigate NIL as a potential distraction, the introduction of NIL opportunities also introduces
the element of having to navigate dealing with businesses and their interests directly, which was
a domain many collegiate athletes had not dealt with extensively before NIL.
Corporate Interests
Perhaps an overlooked element within the NIL public discourse is that for these deals to
take place, they need to be paid by an external party in exchange for the athlete providing some
kind of service. Ideally, the athlete would be working in some capacity for the compensation
they would receive. This business element of NIL has forced some athletes to navigate the
corporate world, where they provide a level of cultural currency to potential business partners by
expanding the companies reach to the athletes’ audience. This was not lost on the athletes within
the study who spoke rather extensively about their experiences navigating what they felt
potential business partners’ interests were. Students mostly spoke about corporate interests in
three primary ways: as an equalizer for NIL opportunities, as a constraining factor to expanded
opportunities, and how their platforms were being used to expand corporate reach.
About half of the athletes who spoke on corporate interests as an equalizing factor spoke
to how companies did not necessarily care about the backgrounds of individual athletes, or what
sports they participated in, but rather how that individual athlete might be able to advance the

100
brand. As Xavier eloquently mentioned in his interview: “StockX doesn't care if you're poor,
they more so care what can you do for them”. Building upon this idea, in reacting to the video
shared in his focus group interview, Carter shared the following:
I think one of the things that stood out to me was like, the statistic about how
like women's diving, and like a lot of other women's sports are able to receive
like, NIL deals as well. And so it shows like how much opportunity there is for
everybody. And it's very inclusive with the deals because everybody, like they
said, has like a target, like group or target target audience that they have, like
built a following around. And so whatever companies would like to reach that
following, whether it's like a basketball fan base, or like that diversity fan base,
they can utilize that to help benefit both the athlete and the company as well.
And so there's opportunities for everybody, you know, where it doesn't matter,
like what sport you do, or where you're from, or what your like interests are,
like, what you what makes you you can be used to, you know, help generate
income and like help get involved in like a community, like as a student athlete.
Carter’s insights here speak of advancing the business partner’s goals as the primary intended
outcome of an NIL deal from the partner’s perspective, which would in theory remove potential
barriers for athletes across various sport, gender, and racial groups regarding NIL deal
opportunities. This logic appeared across racial groups, genders, and sport types, but was
especially prevalent amongst athletes in Olympic sports. A small number of athletes however
talked about the idea that these corporate interests also restricted opportunities in some cases, as
most state NIL laws prevent students from signing endorsement deals that conflict with
university contracts.
Ultimately though, a majority of the athletes within the study were well aware of the fact
that corporate entities would benefit from NIL as much, if not more than they would. Victor
spoke of this in terms of a return on investment and explained the following:
Kevin said like, they want a return on investment and that return on investment
isn't gonna be you paying the money but they're gonna want some type of return
on investment. And you know, when you're, if you're like, if you're like a star
football quarterback, like the return on investment is very easy. You know, like,

101
you're visible you're on TV, you you get interviewed all the time, you know, there
are people who are gonna see that you say you use something and they're gonna
go back to get it you know what I mean? When you come from like a less
valuable or less lucrative sports space, not valuable, lucrative, you have to make
yourself invaluable and that has to become a really core part of your athletic
identity. It's show them with why you're why you add value to their space, not
just, hey, I want to work with you because I want that money. I want to I just want
to feel important, I want to feel like I'm I want to I just want to do whatever else is
doing right now and like do the cool thing, you know, and just get like a get a
partnership, you know, you really have to associate value with your identity, even
if it's not in that financial like dollar sign kind of way.
This language of adding value to a company was repeated across various athlete groups and
spoke to the awareness the athletes had about the role of corporate partners within the NIL space
and how they would be evaluated by these corporate partners. Some athletes leaned on aspects of
their personal identities in order to present themselves as being more of a value add.
Diversity as Opportunity
In order to navigate corporate interests, several collegiate athletes highlighted the ways
their unique identities could make them ideal candidates to obtain NIL deals. Students appeared
to be very enthusiastic about this when sharing their aspirations to get deals. Students mentioned
various parts of their identities including: their race, gender, sexuality, religious affiliation,
hometowns, physical attributes such as hair, or hobbies. Below are a few examples from
Michelle, Naomi, Carter, and Rosey:
Um, I definitely think that, you know, when it comes to identity, and like, what
you identify with, whether it be race or gender, or you know, sexuality, I think
there's a niche for every part of that. And what I mean by that, I just feel like
companies will tend to find those people that fit within their what I mean by that,
I just feel like companies will tend to find those people that fit within their
categories. And so the more diverse that you can be whether, you know, whether
you're Black, whether you're a person of color, whether you come from a rich
background, whether you have some international experience, you know, just
things like that community service, do you do anything other than play sports? So
I think the more diverse that your background is, then the more opportunity you
have to work with a host of different companies.- Michelle, women’s basketball

102
I feel like it's pretty obvious, like as a woman of color, I'm gonna sell things and
sell to that market. I'm obviously trying to reach a bigger, bigger population, but
like, that's kind of what I contribute and volunteer my time with. So that's kind of
aligns with the NIL deals and what audience are trying to reach. Because those
are the people that obviously most of the people that follow me.- Naomi, Track
and Field
Yeah, it's, um, it's because it can kind of, like when they partner with you, if you
have something like specifically that is like about their brand, like, let's say, if
like, you partner with, like a religious clothing brand, or something like that,
where they promote, like, I don't know, like Biblical verses, if you are somebody
who comes from like, a religious background, and like, posts a lot of like,
religious things online and things like that, or you like, you have like verses of
scripture written on your shoe, those things. You know, it's like a match. It's like,
the puzzle pieces matches, like, this is what I, I believe in and things like that.
And this is what like a brand, like, wants to represent and believes in, like when
once you like, find each other, and then you're able to, like, make that connection,
that's when, like, a deal can like, come together. And it can work with like, a
bunch of aspects, like I said, like, race, or religion, or like sexuality, like, even
like female, like empowerment brands, like that, like, oh, there's just like a bunch
of other like opportunities. And like, I don't know, all the specifics, but I just
know it's there. Because I, you know, I've been able to see it, and things like that.
I think Allyson Felix was able to get a deal was like with, like pregnant women,
and like a certain line of shoe, which is really cool. So you know, whatever it is
about you, you know, it can like, help you transfer and get those deals.- Carter,
Track and Field
Yeah, I totally, I totally agree with that. It's like, not anyone can have deals, you
know, like, the brands are thinking like, they want people who can represent
their brand the best way possible. And like she just said, the more you have
diversity in you like something special and original, like people are gonna love it
because it's different. And it brings something else to the table for the
companies and all that stuff. Yeah, that's a good point.- Rosey, Women’s
Basketball
The common theme in these responses, was students feeling that the elements of their identities
that made them unique, could appeal to brands who were also looking for new audiences to
market their products towards. While it is possible that this could be viewed as potentially
exploitative for the athletes, the athletes themselves saw it as a means of marketing and creating

103
opportunity for themselves within a crowded NIL marketplace to find their own niche audience.
This is but one of several skills that was discussed as a benefit of the NIL landscape.
NIL Benefits
Every student within the study spoke favorably about NIL and the possibilities it could
create for them. While there are numerous complications that collegiate athletes face with
navigating the NIL landscape, the benefits of what NIL could provide was salient to students
across sports, racial groups, genders, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This second theme
reflected how students perceived they would be able to win in the NIL landscape and ways it
would benefit them not only in their lives as college athletes, but also in their post-sport lives.
Collegiate athletes reflected on the NIL learning opportunities they felt could serve them well
within the workforce, as well as the varying levels of financial stability they felt NIL
opportunities could provide. Additionally, students provided insights on ways specifically they
felt uniquely positioned to benefit from NIL opportunities. The findings from this theme reflect
the perspectives of both collegiate athletes who had signed NIL deals already and those who had
not.
Post-sport Skills
While it is very tempting and convenient to process the emergence of NIL policies in
ways that impact collegiate athletes in the moment, during their athletic careers, many athletes
spoke to the opportunities NIL presented for them to establish skills they could utilize after
college. These skills ranged from individually focused life skills such as learning financial
management skills and understanding taxes, to more business-oriented skills such as networking,

104
dealing with representation, and brand-building skills. Kevin, a track and field athlete, spoke to
his mindset in approaching NIL almost exclusively for its professional benefits:
Yeah, I personally, one of the benefits for me… as far as like the changes to be
able to network with different companies and being able to work on your skills,
you know, how to talk to people, how to introduce yourself, you know, basically
all those things that we need, when you're being interviewed in the workforce.
So I feel like that's like the main thing that's kind of... like the advantage of being
able to, you know, work on how to be able to network yourself in front of other
people…NIL we just, I said, it's another avenue for me, it was like, Okay, there's
another avenue for me to try to get my foot in the door for a company. Possibly,
you know get hired, you know, that's how I kind of looked at the whole NIL deal,
kind of like that.
In navigating the NIL landscape in this way, athletes were able to utilize NIL opportunities in
order to advocate for themselves, and this was especially salient for athletes who were in
Olympic sports. In addition to the relational benefits of NIL, several students such as Bruce
added the importance of focusing on cultivating their likeness to establish a professional
presence, they can leverage in future job searches:
It also helps you start, like thinking about your career in a way, like makes him
more like, well as saying it makes you more professional, take more care about
yourself, because you at the end of the day, you want to be able to promote a
company and make money off of that. So making sure that your likeness is
relatively clean. And then that also keeps you in the mindset of professionally,
where you [uphold] the standard of a company that you're eventually gonna
work for if I continue with [them] full time as an athlete, so it's all about just
getting your mind ready for the next stage in your life as opposed to just being an
amateur and continuing with amateur status throughout college.
Envisioning the idea of likeness as a tool for professional branding was a recurring note amongst
collegiate students across sport types, genders, and racial groups. Additionally, even some
international collegiate athletes who face barriers to their participation in the NIL landscape
noted a desire to leverage their knowledge of NIL policies and experiences in developing
entrepreneurship ideas, as well as learning from brands on how to navigate marketing fellow

105
athletes. Students expressed that the ability to maintain these relationships and skills post-college
could be parlayed into future opportunities. A few other athletes, however, spoke to the financial
stability for the present that NIL opportunities provide.
NIL as Improved Financial Stability
Despite the variances in income with NIL deal opportunities, many collegiate athletes
spoke about the opportunities that NIL presented them to build upon their current levels of
financial stability. It is important to note that these students were not communicating that they
were looking forward to lucrative financial opportunities that would transport them from one tax
bracket to the next, but rather, they were looking forward to having additional source of income
that would provide them with varying levels of financial freedom. One athlete Camille, spoke to
this potential for financial freedom:
So many people say…, what are you gonna do if you don't do good at this meet
and you don't get paid for the meet or whatever like pro wise… you can't just put
your whole life on just being an athlete…with the NIL opportunities, I kind of
feel like… a kind of security like I can just be an athlete.
Camille spoke to the freedom that comes with not needing to put so much pressure on herself
and her athletic performance in order to maintain a certain level of financial stability. An
important caveat for this finding is that several other athletes within the study noted the inverse
of students like Camille, saying that the financial promises of NIL deals inspired them to invest
more into their athletic performance to increase their platforms. In either case however, the
constant was that a significant portion of the collegiate athletes within the study noted that NIL
could improve their financial status, even in small ways such as having additional sources of
income to spend time with friends. Some athletes, noted that NIL had provided them not only
with opportunities to have spending money, but also opportunities to have money to save as well.

106
This was especially salient for athletes from lower socioeconomic statuses. Michelle recalled the
following:
I mean, personally, for me, I didn't grow up with a lot of things. And so I've
always had a conservative mindset, I've always valued money more, I valued it in
a way of, you know, just do I really need to spend money on this, or can I save
this? And so I really had that mindset. And so, for me, NIL has just given me the
opportunity to make sure that I'm stable to basically give me some type of
freedom in my life and not have to rely on anyone else for help. And because I'm
not really a big person to say, “hey, I need some help I gotta pay this bill or this
bill”. And so when I think of NIL, I think of it as another opportunity for me to
grow my savings not necessarily pay to go buy the latest bag or you know, latest
thing.
Michelle’s experiences reflect not only reflect the opportunities athletes have to grow savings
through NIL opportunities, but also, she spoke to the levels of independence that having
additional NIL income provided. Several athletes across genders, socioeconomic statuses, and
sports spoke to the ideas of having a level of financial independence from NIL opportunities,
especially freedom from leaning on their caregivers for financial assistance. This finding was
another reminder of the reality that these students are young adults, navigating early adulthood
like so many other college students, trying to establish their own independence. Another added
level of financial stability students referenced is that NIL opportunities allowed them to
circumvent having to get a job which would detract from already scarce free time. Jermaine and
Andre discussed this reality:
Jermaine: For me, I think so because I used to have to kind of depend on like
the...what was it like this school, like issued stipend that we get, which is like, I
don't even know how much is exactly, but I mean, it's enough to get by. But
obviously, I'd be able to prefer to have like an extra source of income, which
helps me a lot.
Andre: Yeah, and 100%. Prior to NIL coming into play, [I] always tried to find
different ways to like hustle or work a job on the side if I could, during undergrad
and even now currently, this season, I'm blessed to have a job that kind of fits
around, like our practice or meeting schedules. But with some of the NIL

107
opportunities I've been able to garner like, it definitely helps for sure. So I will say
it's been a positive impact on my life.
For Jermaine and Andre, who were both athletes in revenue-generating sports, and athletes on
full scholarships, to speak to the idea that they still needed additional income to support
themselves can provide some insights to the levels of student need that may exist across sports
and socioeconomic backgrounds. Students spoke very freely about the ways that even small
opportunities could make their lives just a bit easier. Additionally, collegiate athletes within the
study spoke about creative ways they uniquely felt that they would be able to benefit from the
NIL landscape to pursue this level of increased stability.
Benefitting Factors
To take advantage of the NIL landscape, students spoke to the need to differentiate
themselves from other collegiate athletes to prove themselves as uniquely capable of providing
value to corporate partners in specific ways. Student’s assessments of what would enable them to
be benefit from the NIL landscape varied greatly. They indicated benefitting factors ranging
from physical factors to social interests, as well as their personal histories.
Several authors have noted the role of traditionally perceived attractiveness for athletes,
especially in women’s sports as a factor influencing NIL deal availability. A few students within
the study also acknowledged the role that attractiveness played in being able to benefit from NIL
opportunities. Justin explains: “Your attractiveness…especially with a lot of the female athletes,
but definitely the male athletes too…I feel like if you're like pretty attractive, that's just another
way to promote yourself and get more followers potentially”. While Justin’s comments allude to
not only some of the gendered dynamics of navigating the NIL landscape, his comments also
speak to the subjective nature of how collegiate athletes are viewed as being valuable. In addition

108
to attractiveness, some athletes spoke to utilizing unique physical attributes as a factor that would
enable them to benefit. Victor provides one such example:
I mean, I'm a dude with long hair, my hair's down to the bottom of my
back, you can't really tell right now, because I got it up. But I have
really long hair, and I have my whole life. So I mean, for me, I'm able to kind of
use that in the NIL space a little bit because I swim. So that means I'm in
chemicals all the time. And I'm a dude with really long hair. We take really good
care of it. So I just think a lot of hair care and like, hair company products that,
uh, really, like really want me to, like vouch for their product or be like, oh, like,
I'm a dude who's been growing my hair out for 22 years. Like, I, l
swear by this brand, because I'm in the I'm in chlorinated water five hours a day,
you know, look at how good my hair is. I guess
that's probably like, the most unique part of my identity beyond just my, my
swimming ability, you know?
This excerpt cannot fully describe the visible joy Victor had when discussing his long hair and
the pride he had in maintaining it and wanting to leverage that within the NIL space. Students
were passionate in sharing these things they felt made them unique. For athletes who did not
mention physical attributes, they shared experiences of different ways their social lives could
shape how they may benefit from NIL activities.
Several students spoke to the idea that their social lives could create a sense of relatability
to consumers when marketing products. They noted personal connections to brands for athletic
materials, food products, and a variety of hobbies could allow them to create niches for them,
regardless of sport or gender. Savannah, a women’s basketball player offered the following:
Back to my point about personalities like it doesn't matter who you are like,
everybody has a story to tell everybody has a different personality. Everybody has
something about them… whether it's fashion music, like cooking, like anything. I
believe you don't have to have a big name or a certain sport or whatever tied to
you to be able to showcase that. And I think that's the beauty of NIL.
The ability of collegiate athletes to carve out niches in this way was encouraging for students,
especially the elements of individual storytelling. Students spoke to how they could leverage
elements of their personal histories to create compelling narratives for NIL opportunities. Several

109
students mentioned how they could play to the sports traditions within their college contexts, as
well the traditions within their hometowns. The nuances of which sports mattered in different
pockets of the country was not lost on athletes within the study and one student Camille, spoke to
how these regional nuances could influence NIL opportunities:
Yeah, besides from what school you go to, I think where you grew up, it'd be
a big thing. Because I know, I'm from Boston, Massachusetts. So, I think if I
was to have played lacrosse, or hockey in Boston, I would have been more visible
in high school. And then that would have led to me having a greater platform, and
then I could have probably had more involvement in NIL in college. But
having run track coming out of Boston as a sprinter, it's not very common. It's
very, very rare, because of just like how cold it is. So I think if I would have had
the same high school success that I had, like, literally the same career that had
been located in Texas, or Florida, or California, which are more like track states,
at least for sprinting, and like they're more visible, and they're more highlighted, I
think… it would have been better.
Camille notes the important role that location plays for being able to maximize platform
opportunities and benefit from NIL opportunities, acknowledging that athletes with similar
careers can have drastically different levels of popularity based on location alone. Factors such
as location of where athletes attend their schooling, are in many cases factors outside of the
athlete’s sole control, creating variations in who can benefit in what ways. While there was great
variation in what students within the study identified as factors that could help them benefit from
the NIL landscape, notably absent from any of these benefitting factors though were any
discussions of racial identity, which will be discussed in a later section. While students spoke
optimistically about the opportunities available within the NIL landscape for collegiate athletes
to benefit, it also was not lost on these students that the benefits and opportunities were not
distributed either equally or equitably.

110
NIL Inequities
Early critics of NIL policies were quick to speak of ways that NIL would create
unfairness within college sports by creating classes of collegiate athletes clashing for NIL
dollars: the football and basketball players versus Olympic sports athletes, star football players
and basketball players versus their own teammates, as well as concerns over women’s sports
being harmed by NIL. Collegiate athletes within the study had their own perceptions on what
inequities exist currently within the NIL landscape, some of them were in alignment with
critiques common in public discourses, but several of them reflected knowledge that could have
only been gained from living their lives on college campuses and having a sense of community
with other student athletes. This third theme focuses on the inequities students observed within
the NIL space. These inequities covered a variety of topics including concerns over opportunity
distribution, who is excluded from participating in NIL opportunities, the ability of platforms to
influence opportunities, as well as differences in the levels of labor required to create meaningful
NIL opportunities.
Athlete Exploitation
Athletes within this study were very mindful of the history they were stepping into as
some of the first athletes of the NIL era. Their sense of historical legacy drew attention to the
facts that for decades, athletes in their positions were unable to monetize any elements of their
identities and many athletes said this explicitly during their interviews. Specifically, in the Padlet
learning activity, when participants were asked what percentage of NIL revenues the NCAA
should receive in a long-term policy solution, over 50% of participants allocated the NCAA 5%
or less, with many of them allocating 0%. In their explanations, they cited the historical
exploitation of the NCAA as a reason why they should not be significant beneficiaries in the NIL

111
era. As Andre, a football player, astutely mentioned in his interview when discussing the
potential revenue splits: “me and my friends say this all the time, ‘they [the NCAA] profit off of
Black bodies’, but they profit off the athlete body, regardless of what race, creed or
denomination you are.” Andre’s insights highlight not only the centrality of varying levels of
athlete exploitation to the NCAA’s non-profit business practices, but also a specific attention to
the exploitation of Black collegiate athletes throughout the NCAA’s history. Within this
particular subtheme, Black collegiate athletes made up a majority of the participants with coded
data. Some athletes, building upon this idea noted they felt it would be a matter of time before
bodies such as the NCAA would find a way to institute policies that would grant them greater
power within the NIL era. While not many athletes in the study analyzed athlete exploitation at
this level, many did speak to their key role within the college sports ecosystem and the obstacles
they face in playing that role as a reason why they should be able to benefit from NIL
opportunities. Consider the following from Megan:
I feel like the NCAA kind of puts a lot of like rules and
regulations on us as athletes and doesn't really help us make any money. So I
think that finally now being able to use NIL to profit off of our own bodies
is lit because that's exactly what our schools do. And then also, we as
athletes, like me, my sister play for [our school] and so it's like, as do you want to
athletes, you literally have no time. And so it's hard to make money.
Megan’s comments acknowledge the role that NCAA plays as a legislative body that largely acts
punitively towards the athlete, without providing an entry point for them to participate in
financial revenues the NCAA brings in. Additionally, she notes the roles that higher education
institutions also play in profiting off athletes’ bodies. It is important to note here that these
perceptions of exploitation came from athletes on full scholarships, as well as athletes not on
scholarship at all. Additionally, this perspective included athletes across sport types, including

112
Olympic sports which usually do not generate revenues for their institutions. The notable aspect
of these perspectives from athletes though, is a consistent feeling the amount of time that is put
forth to participate in sports is inconsistent with the benefits they felt they should have been able
to receive. Especially since the restrictions on time would prevent them from earning additional
income. In this way, athletes acknowledged the potential for NIL to be a corrective experience,
enabling them to reap some level of benefit from their labor as athletes. While several athletes
noted the exploitation within the current version of the college sports landscape, with NIL
serving as an opportunity to reshape college sports, a majority of the athletes in the study noted
that NIL’s benefits would be reserved almost exclusively for athletes with elite status.
Elite Athlete Superiority
While many themes within this study found agreement across various sport types, it is
important to reiterate that a large portion of the athletes in this study were athletes from Olympic
sports. These students had very clear examples of the ways they felt they were disadvantaged, if
not outright excluded, from the NIL landscape in comparison to their peers in revenue generating
sports. The perception of which athletes were perceived as elite were also nuanced to account for
the gendered dynamics of college sports. Several factors shaped perceptions of benefits afforded
to elite athletes including media attention and institutional investments.
Many athletes in Olympic sports noted the role that media attention plays in their ability
to cultivate NIL opportunities. The levels of media attention were impacted not only by the
popularity of their respective sports on the collegiate level, but several athletes mentioned the
roles that their sports’ professional counterparts played in creating a larger platform for them.
Fan interest in sports leagues such as the NBA, NFL, or MLB can spark a trickle-down effect
that brings more attention to college sports, whereas sports such as tennis, soccer and track and

113
field do not receive the same level of professional attention on a consistent basis in comparison.
perceptions and discourses surrounding NIL and its impact on collegiate athletes. Kevin spoke to
this in his interview:
Me personally, I feel like the main disconnect is between like the other sports
outside of the big money generators. So like, I saw football and basketball, you
know, how are those athletes going to get the same opportunities to
be able to use their name and image, because we all know like, main
purpose of the NIL was basically for football, basketball, because you know,
they the money generators. So when it comes to like swimming and track and
baseball, who you know, rarely be on television, we probably won't be
on television ‘til like a championship meet for about a short period of time. How
will we be able to get a slice of the pie as well?
This discrepancy in media attention and fan intrigue was also noted as a factor influencing public
perception and discourses surrounding NIL and its impact on collegiate athletes. For example,
Bruce in his interview spoke about a figure he had heard stating that the average income an
individual athlete generated from NIL was approximately $500 and explained: “...When they say
average $500 per athlete... it's just… most people just don't do it. So it's being averaged out by
football players or basketball players or people in bigger sports that are making millions of
dollars off the deals.” Bruce’s explanation highlights while it is easy for figures such as these to
circulate, they can undermine the nuances of NIL participation and create space for revenue
generating sports to take up an exclusionary amount of space in the NIL discourse. Elite athletes
are the ones whose endorsement deals are most frequently highlighted by ESPN and other media
outlets, often at the literal expense of Olympic sports athletes. The space being taken up has
financial implications for athletes in Olympic sports in brand-building terms as well. Figures
such as the one on average NIL income also undermine the realities that even elite athletes in
Olympic sports can struggle to generate NIL opportunities. Maria expressed the importance of
media attention when discussing the struggles of Olympic medalists to garner recognition:

114
“We're talking about like Olympic swimmers, like Olympic gold medalists, make like the bare
minimum compared to like other sports, which have they may not have the same caliber of
success, but their sport is being marketed better”. Further complicating the idea of elite status, is
that athletes in women’s sports have to also contend with the reality that in many cases their
sports are not as popular or televised as frequently as men’s sports, which as Isabel notes can
impact the perceived marketability of women’s athletes in sports like swimming:
Yeah, like I think a big thing is especially for like swimming, it's not as popular I
guess is like football would be or like a show that's televised. And also being like,
a woman in sport definitely makes that difference as well. Because like, not only
are we not playing like a popular like televised like football, that's like also just
like a male dominated sport as well. So like when it comes to like brand deals
with like, big companies like Nike and things like that, like it's, they're gonna get
that to people who have like 100,000 followers and are like a quarterback rather
than just like someone who may be really good and like, can go to like Olympic
trials and like these big national and like international level meets, but like, no one
cares as much as like someone on a football team, if that makes sense.
Athletes noted that their respective institutions could also be susceptible to investing more in
elite athletes in more lucrative sports to draw more attention to certain programs.
Athletes in Olympic sports shared observations that they were less likely to be marketed
equitably on their campuses and within digital spaces as well. Inequitable investment in this way
created cynicism over the legitimacy of institutional NIL efforts, in some cases there were
tangible physical reminders that reminded athletes in non-revenue generating sports of their
status on campus compared to sports such as basketball and football. Savannah, a women’s
basketball player explained the following experience:
I was going to bring up the example of how the whole football team got
scooters. And in my case, scooters is like a metaphor, but I think there needs to be
some event that goes on with each team of like, every player, not saying like,
fairness, equity, all this, but just saying, like, kind of level the playing field a little
bit. I mean, like, we're all amazing athletes at the school. So I think to say that
nobody deserves some type of deal, I think is a little bit crazy. Um, so

115
something like a scooter deal, like, the Beats or whatever, I think that would be
super cool. Just to make like, all athletes feel connected.
In Savannah’s scenario, seeing the football players go by on scooters as they navigated some of
the same athletic facilities was a reminder of her second-class status as an athlete on her campus,
despite her being a scholarship athlete herself. The belief that each athlete is worthy of NIL
opportunities due to their athletic ability was widespread throughout participants in the study.
This belief, however, was not necessarily always actualized through their institution’s investment
patterns. These institutional behaviors not only impacted the perceptions of present athletes, but
also can shape the perceptions of prospective athletes via recruitment where the discourses about
NIL deals influencing signing decisions have been very prevalent.
Recruitment Impacts
The impact of NIL on recruitment was a topic that was centered in the public discourse
both prior to and after the implementation of NIL nationwide and athletes within the study
agreed that recruitment was a point of concern. Moreso than any other theme in the study,
perspectives varied on whether recruitment was positively or negatively impacted by NIL
policies.
Athletes who felt that recruitment impacts would be positive identified that NIL would
provide agency to prospective athletes in deciding their own futures based on what works best
for the individual athlete. Several athletes such as Jimmy, applauded the free-market approach
that the NIL marketplace:
I think potentially, if you're a big-name recruit, and there's like certain schools or
like markets that have a lot of connections and are in the spotlight more than I
could, I could definitely see that as like something that would like shift the
balance…I think more of like a free market approach. It just kind of like leaves it
up to the recruit.

116
Jimmy’s perspectives emphasize the elements of choice available to the recruits, but they also
highlight some of the unequal distribution of resources among sports and higher education
institutions as well. These perspectives aligned with notable public discourses on the advantages
that larger schools in the Power 5 conferences have. Schools within smaller markets who may
lack alumni bases who can amass the resources to entice recruits can be viewed as being at a
disadvantage in the NIL marketplace. Contrarily, though, other athletes viewed that NIL could
have an equitable impact on recruiting by enabling smaller schools which may have been
traditionally ignored in the recruiting process to leverage their local connections and resources in
ways that are enticing to specific athletes. Consider Henry’s perspective:
I think kind of a big aspect right now is, is you're starting to see
some equity in at least recruiting across some of those bigger sports…because I
think some of the smaller teams are able, to pull some money and get some more
top tier talent rather than they just go kind of the top three teams.
While Henry speaks to the reality that athletes can benefit in specific situations on a microlevel
in recruitment in the NIL era, some athletes noted that both historically and now, recruitment has
always reflected both what the school can do for the athlete and what the athlete can do for the
school. Some Olympic sports athletes noted that due to the lower potential for lucrative NIL
opportunities, more focus was placed on the coaching staff in the recruitment process. For others
though, they noted how NIL opportunities could potentially influence who institutions recruit,
opting for athletes who have already have a following and can bring additional attention to their
school. Lynn offered the following:
Yeah, I think that's an important point that schools would like bring in someone
just because…I think there's some athletes that even as high schoolers already
kind of have a following. And like, schools would be more drawn to recruit them
if they know they're going to bring them in more money. But at the same time, I

117
don't know... if you would... I feel like schools would still think about the fact
that like a better athlete is gonna bring them in more like eventually.
Lynn’s excerpt here highlights the tensions between the ability to generate attention through
social media reputation and reputation from athletic performance that must be accounted for in
the NIL era even during the recruitment process, The perception that both endorsement dollars
and scholarship dollars could be given to athletes on basis beyond athletic performance in the
recruitment process was discussed as another potential inequity within the NIL landscape,
especially in athletic contexts where opportunities are already limited. While prospective recruits
can navigate their decisions with NIL optimization in mind, international students currently have
to navigate the NIL landscape with severe obstacles to benefitting from NIL opportunities.
International Student Concern
Of the various groups harmed by the inequities of NIL’s implementation to date, the
exclusion of international collegiate athletes was noted as especially harmful by athletes within
the study. A majority of the international students within the study identified as Black, adding an
additional layer of complexity to their experiences. International athletes composed 15% of the
athletes within the study, which closely approximated international athlete representation across
NCAA institutions at 12%. Both international students within the study, as well as domestic
students noted some of the barriers to inclusion created inequities within the NIL landscape and
these concerns largely centered around anger in their inability to participate in NIL and feelings
of confusion when navigating the NIL process at their institutions.
Fueling some of the anger for international students was the idea that they felt they were
as deserving of the opportunity to monetize their name, image, and likeness as their American
teammates. For international athletes in revenue-generating sports these feelings were also

118
exasperated by the fact that they were contributing to the same financial enterprise as their
teammates, but they were being prevented from benefitting. Despite feelings of anger though,
international athletes within the study acknowledged a need to exercise substantial caution when
navigating NIL activities due to the complications that could arise with their visa statuses if they
violated existing restrictions. Xavier, a men’s basketball player provided the following:
I'm in the same boat as Antwon really so like, I really, I feel like we don't
understand it as much or are scared to really get involved with it. So we're kind of
put in the dark. Our American teammates or high school teammates are in college
now, they're a lot further... a lot further along than we are in this sense. Like, I
don't really know what's going on and like how it really works to be quite honest
with you. And obviously the whole visa stuff, I-20 stuff just holds us back even
more.
Xavier’s comments highlight not only the hesitation that international athletes must consider, as
well as the discrepancy in navigational capital they have compared to their American teammates,
he also mentions the idea that there was a lack of guidance from his institution in knowing how
to approach potential NIL opportunities.
For international athletes particularly, having clear institutional guidance on how they can
successfully navigate NIL opportunities was essential, yet they did not report this guidance
always being available. Institutions varied in the levels of information that they provided, which
contributed to the confusion in some cases. As one student Antwon observed:
“I just found about two, three days ago that the NIL policy is, like
a two-page handbook, which with not much detail… sucks as an international
student… our school doesn't really do a good job of helping us. I know they're
working on it. But I feel like it's a lot more talk about working on it, rather than
actually… putting stuff into motion.”
Antwon’s observation highlights that vagueness in institutional communication ultimately harms
athletes who are trying to figure out ways to monetize the opportunities in front of them as
cautiously as possible. Yet, some international athletes within the study were aggressive in

119
pursuing opportunities on their own that complied to the best of their knowledge, only to learn
from their institutions they would have to decline those opportunities. Tiffany shared a
distressing story on this subject:
Tiffany: Me personally, I'm an international student and I have an issue with
how it was portrayed, because it's kind of like everyone would be able to take
part in this and no one outright said that I could not. So first of all… it was
difficult even trying to get into a deal and then I actually did get into a deal only
to find out by the way that I can't do it because it'll mess up my visa eligibility
and I could be deported if I take part in it... And then I would have been at risk
because there was poor communication. I don't know if it's by the NIL company
by the school, NCAA, I don't know, but it was just not very well [communicated]
Isaiah: So sorry, I just want to ask a clarifying question. So you're saying that you
found out that you wouldn't be able to participate in a in an NIL deal and was it
the school that informed you that you wouldn't be able to do that afterwards?
Or how did you find that out?
Tiffany: Compliance. I think I was at a random team meeting. And
someone asked the question, it was another international student that [said]
they would not be able to do it. And that was news to me, because I'd actually
just got in contact with [a resource] where [they] gets deals for you, so I was in
contact with that person. And I got through with some deal and they're
supposed to send me the products. And I was waiting for them. I was in that
meeting where I heard that for the first time, so I had to cancel that and
everything.
Tiffany’s experience the dangers at play for international students who choose to venture out into
the NIL landscape without clear institutional communication in place. International athletes like
Tiffany who are simply trying to leverage their resources to monetize their NIL rights face an
uphill battle in simply being international students, before additional factors such as race, gender,
and socioeconomic status are taken into consideration. For Tiffany, her experiences as an
international athlete, as well as being a Black woman, compounded the difficulties of navigating
the NIL landscape. These experiences illustrate the need for clear institutional communication to
promote equitable outcomes, especially for historically marginalized groups.

120
Gendered Opportunities
While NIL opportunities have increased opportunities for athletes to gain financially, the
pathways to obtaining NIL deals and the work that goes into these opportunities however, vary
for different groups .For groups, such as women’s athletes that have been largely marginalized
throughout the history of college sports, NIL presents both opportunities for women’s athletes to
be simultaneously empowered to get brand deals and marginalized by the attention they receive
in comparison to men’s sports. In response to the video elicitation activity, several men’s
athletes were pleasantly surprised to see that in the news segment’s breakdown of the top five
sports generating the most NIL revenue, three of the sports were women’s sports, with women’s
basketball even eclipsing men’s basketball at the time of the segment’s airing. These students
took the segment’s data as a sign that there was some level of progress, and some mentioned
equality, in terms of opportunities for women in the NIL space. However, only one male athlete
accounted for in the study was that the combined percentages of revenue for the three women’s
sports listed in that segment was approximately 23% compared to the 55% of the two men’s
sports listed which predictably were football and basketball. In these instances, several women’s
athletes within the study highlighted how the lack of professional sports opportunities for women
post-college diminished attention to women’s college sports due to the lack of the sort of trickledown effect that sports like basketball and football benefit from.
In addition to the discrepancies in revenue generating opportunities, several athletes
spoke to the kinds of deals that were available to women’s athletes within the NIL space. In
numerous ways, athletes spoke to the ways that women in particular were steered towards
opportunities that centered their physical appearance more so than their athletic ability. Victor
reflectively offered the following:

121
I think it's like 95% of like, the female NIL deals are like fashion or modeling
things because the typical college female athlete matches the... that stereotyped
female body and look that modern society pushes against so much… the
unrealistic expectations for women kind of thing…I think it would be even more
valuable if there would be if there would be a way to incorporate a lot of these
female athletes into non modelling, non looks-based spaces; more for skill and
your repertoire on your resume as an athlete, you know.
There was nuance though within the perspectives on the marketability of women’s athletes and
their status within the NIL space. Some women within the study made the argument that the
emphasis on their appearance within NIL opportunities could allow them to carve out a niche
space for them within the NIL marketplace that men couldn’t necessarily engage with in the
same ways. Consider this excerpt from Michelle:
There's so many other women's basketball players that are getting deals that really
aren't disclosed to the public. I specifically know a few who don't disclose every
deal. And I think that's a smart thing. Because, you know, you don't really want
everyone in your business. I think that's between you and your agent, because,
you know, your agent will be able to kind of negotiate contracts for you. I mean,
NIL, like [the video] said, I mean, it's been really good for women, I think it's
going to allow us to build our game, not just basketball, but just women's sports in
general, because I feel like women are more marketable than men. We have pretty
faces and personalities that men tend not to have, because they just want to be so
masculine. So I think NIL has allowed us to embrace like our personalities and
who we are off the court, more so than just, you know, the sport that we play.
Michelle spoke not only to the potential unreliability of existing statistics on how well women
are doing within the NIL space due to discretionary disclosure of deals, but she also identifies
ways that women can leverage their marketability in ways that don’t necessarily focus solely on
their status as athletes. Her perspective is also informed by having an advocate in the form of an
agent who can negotiate deals and help establish a niche. For other women’s athletes, the role of
gendered opportunities was also influenced by feelings of inequitable and ingenuine advocacy
from their higher education institutions in helping them to establish their own space.
Generally, throughout the study women’s athletes had realistic evaluations of their status

122
within college sports and within the NIL landscape. They were aware that numerous factors
would influence why on average they would receive less attention than men’s sports, however
what they would not settle for was not having equitable opportunities and their institutions
actively overlooking them. The following excerpt is from a focus group where three women’s
athletes discussed what they felt was performativity from their institutions in advocating for
them:
Lisa: I think he has to be a more personalized thing for us athletes. And then
women need to be at the forefront more. We don't even have to be held above the
men. But we need to be equal to the man when it comes to opportunities and pay.
Savannah: Yeah, because I just know whenever I see on Instagram like
somebody posted an NIL deal like it doesn't matter what it is, but if it's a woman
I'm like, yes! But I think it's rare that I see that. But I agree. I just think we need to
be more valued in this aspect. Because we bring a lot to the table. But I think
that's also not as recognized as the men's side
Lisa: And I also feel they like, us as female athletes. Not all of our deals are going
to be big when it comes to like the boys. They're always going to get big deals
and these big shiny deals with these big, big incentives attached to them. When
you’re just like a girl it’s like ‘here, you take a picture and post it’. It's really not
that much work. And we really don't get that much.
Isaiah Simmons That's actually like....
Naomi: And it also sounds like we're trying to fill a quota. Yeah.
Isaiah Simmons: I'm sorry, when you when you say meeting a quota you're
talking about just for having just female athletes in general?
Naomi: Yeah, like sometimes, like, I don't really want to like name names,
because I appreciate like, having benefited. But like, sometimes I feel like they do
stuff simply to like scatter a couple of us on the social to make it seem like they're
inclusive, but really like, the numbers proportion wise are way skewed towards
[men]. Like they have 15 to our 2.
Isaiah Simmons: Okay, I see what you're saying. So like they're performing like
they're interested in women's sports, but like, that's not really how it breaks out.
Naomi: Exactly And they're not following up as much as I know they would a
male.

123
Lisa: And when you look at the statistics at *school*, women's sports have
consistently been outperforming male sports until this year.
Savannah: Yep
Naomi: Exactly…
Within this conversation Lisa, Savannah and Naomi discussed frustrations they had with their
institutions pretending to be invested in their NIL successes despite a clear record of not
supporting their pursuits. They felt their institutions were trying to present as being invested in
women’s equity, despite the fact they were not being promoted on social media accounts to the
same degree men’s athletes were even if they were performing better athletically. They also felt
it was harder to communicate with staffs at their institutions than it would be for athletes in
revenue generating sports. The disparities in equitable opportunities for women’s athletes
created additional labor for them as they were trying to navigate the NIL space. Athletes across
sports, genders, racial groups and classes, all empathized with this point that entering the NIL
landscape requires a great amount of labor for college athletes.
NIL as Labor
For many students within the study, participating in NIL opportunities added an
additional obligation to their already hectic schedules; in addition to being dedicated athletes,
students on their campuses, and young adults trying to establish their future professional
identities, several of them had taken on new roles as content creators and brand ambassadors.
Within the study, perspectives about how strenuous this additional labor was varied, but
generally discussions about the additional labor of NIL obligations focused on identifying NIL
opportunities and finding time for integrating NIL activities into their schedules.

124
For several athletes within the study, identifying NIL opportunities was the initial
entrance fee to the NIL landscape. This was especially true for athletes in Olympic sports who
felt that opportunities would not come to them as easily as their peers in revenue generating
sports. Several athletes noted that part of this work of identifying NIL opportunities was reaching
out to companies directly via social media platforms to market themselves to potential endorsers.
Jimmy disclosed his experiences with this:
Yeah, on Instagram if it's like a smaller company, usually you can send them a
DM and someone on their social media team will get back to you… that's just one
way to go about it. I don't know if it's one of the more popular ways, but I've
heard of people DMing companies as a way to kind of get things started.
Jimmy’s experiences reflect the reality that for many athletes, both within and outside revenue
generating sports, there was time that needed to be set aside for looking into companies and
organizations that would be in alignment with the athletes’ interests and skills, while also setting
time aside to reach out to those parties directly. Athletes who lacked representation found these
tasks to be especially strenuous. Many athletes in the study were quick to note that success in the
NIL space was largely dependent on the amount of time they were willing to put in to be
successful, yet as has been mentioned already, time is a precious commodity for collegiate
athletes.
Finding time to incorporate NIL activities into their schedules was noted as a concern for
many athletes within the study, especially because obligations from deal to deal may vary to
include photo shoots, digital content creation, volunteer opportunities, as well as logistical
concerns such as travel. Some students found these opportunities to be particularly stressful.
Victor explains:
I've been able to develop a really professional partnership with this elite
swimwear brand. But I mean, I'd be lying if I said it hasn't added to my plate and

125
been stressful. It's not like I just get to keep living my life as is and get paid to do
it. You know, I have to take on other responsibilities. I have to have phone calls
with the company, I have to push out a certain amount of content, I have to send
them a certain amount of content, I have to market the company, all sorts of
things, you know? It's like, there's already like this common misconception that
like student athletes at big universities like *my school* have life easy … you got
20 hour athletic weeks on top of like 16 to 17 units of school, some people work
jobs, like I work a job on top of all that. And now because I'm choosing to take
advantage of this at this NIL space, now I have to factor that into the entire plate.
It's not just like a big bonus in life. You know, it's like it's like with NIL comes
responsibility, you're adding to your plate and you're adding to responsibilities. I
feel like just a lot of people don't understand that.
Victor’s experience highlights that even for athletes who have notable NIL deals, the NIL
process creates additional labor for athletes that can be strenuous. In addition to the time
constraints, some students noted how these opportunities can be distractions and could take time
away from athletic obligations such as practices and film studies. Consider the following excerpt
from Rosalia:
Rosalia: Just for example, one of the deals that I did, I had to do like an Instagram
post. So, I have to go somewhere and take a picture and it has to be good.
It takes time out of your studying, out of practice out of certain things. I know,
people who have had to miss practice, because they have to go to a shoot. And I
don't know, I think it adds more to your plate…
Isaiah Simmons: So if I can ask a follow up question on that… How much time
did that take that day?
Rosalia: I mean, it just it really depended, I kind of took advantage. Like when I
did, I took advantage of the fact that I was going like a little bit out of town for
Thanksgiving break. So it was a nice location. But if I hadn't that was like a 30
minute drive. And then taking the pictures was probably like another 30 minutes
that I would have been… like a whole two hours to take some pictures. And I
mean, that's if they like come out good. And like they did, thankfully. But also I
feel like specifically being like women, you care about your feed, and you care
about what people see, a lot. So I think that, yeah, just it could take up a lot of
time in your day, I would say.
Rosalia’s experiences here note not only the time-consuming element of NIL deals and their
potential impacts on athletic or academic performance, but they also bring attention to the idea

126
that for women in particular, the labor of NIL participation can be especially gendered when
accounting for the expectations of adhering to beauty standards. While several participants spoke
to the negative impacts of the additional labor associated with NIL opportunities, there were
several others who did not feel this way and viewed the labor as another challenge to overcome.
At times, it can be easy to forget that collegiate athletes are competitors, who in order to
reach to reach their current status as Division I collegiate athletes have had to be among the most
successful competitors in their respective sports from young ages. Having this kind of mindset
compelled several athletes within the study to pursue NIL opportunities despite the additional
obligations it would require. Several of these athletes spoke to their excitement of opportunities
outweighing their concerns and wanting to do the work needed to succeed. As Bruce explains:
It's pretty much all dependent on you… some people will think that NIL just gives
you money, like the NCAA is giving you money… But it's all dependent on how
much you want it, how much work are you willing to put into making deals and
going out and promoting yourself?
This optimistic approach to the labor NIL requires was some athletes took and these perspectives
were more common amongst middle-class students. Additionally, some athletes chose to
downplay the idea of NIL as strenuous labor altogether. Naomi indicates the following:
I guess I’ll just add, sometimes there's like a misconception in it. There's a lot of
added work, but I'm willing to take on the work considering the reward. Some
people were just like, ‘Oh, it's too much for the athlete’. I don't think so, I think
we can handle it. And I think that, it's our time to start benefiting off what we do.
So, when people are just like, ‘oh, well, it's too distracting for them’ No. Like, we
are more than capable. I think it's just like, people thinking it's more than it is, if
that makes any sense.
Naomi’s perspective highlights that the labor associated with NIL is welcomed partially because
for so long athletes had been denied a rightful share of revenues. She did not want to be
excluded due to scheduling difficulties. These perspectives were admirable and rooted in a desire
for equitable treatment as a college athlete. Despite the perspectives on the labor required for

127
NIL opportunities, it was widely understood that pursuing these opportunities required some sort
of labor from athletes. There were also differences in how athletes were prepared to engage in
this work based on numerous factors including socioeconomic status.
Class Differences
While all groups of athletes reported that successfully navigating the NIL landscape
required a level of labor, there were certainly class differences in how they approached the labor
required for NIL. Approximately two-thirds of athletes within the study identified as being
middle class, with the other one-third identified as either poor or working class, and lastly only
one student identified as being wealthy. Along racial lines, 5 of the 6 low-income students
identified as Black. Within their interviews, the three largest areas where class differences
manifested themselves were in navigational capital, pressures faced to obtain NIL opportunities,
and perspectives on the levels of mobility that NIL could provide.
Predictably, students from middle class and upper-class backgrounds were more likely to
have additional resources to help them navigate the NIL landscape including access to
representation. Agents were a significant asset for collegiate athletes as they helped clarify
whether NIL opportunities were compliant with state and university policies, opportunities that
were suited to athletes’ schedules and interests, while also negotiating appropriate rates for their
work. Naomi provided some insights on her experience “Personally, I signed a [deal], which
[included] one post and a reel… Both of those I earned through having individual representation.
My agent was a core piece in helping me learn about this stuff and looking out for me…”. In
addition to the navigational capital that came along with being able to afford representation,
students in higher socioeconomic classes were also more likely to report having family support
in helping them navigate the NIL landscape, even if they weren’t particularly familiar with how

128
collegiate athletics functioned. Cooper, the lone student who identified as affluent, shared the
influence his family held on him:
I'd say part of it goes back to your education and what you've been able to be
exposed to while you've been growing up. I mean, obviously, we're at *my
school* So it's a great institution, like the education here is already really high.
But I think it also goes back to how organized and educated your parents are as
well, to a degree, just because, at least in my experience, they kind of shaped who
I am and how well I know about current issues or like different topics.
Students who were able to lean on their families for support in navigating the NIL space were at
an advantage here with having networks who could potentially facilitate learning opportunities or
actual financial opportunities. Maya offers the following perspective:
I feel like as you go up in class background, it might be like easier for you to find
the resources and find people that can, help you better understand how to use NIL.
Because maybe you have more connections because you have more money. If
you're higher up in class, whereas if you're lower class, you have to be a little
bit… more creative and rely more on your talent, rather than being able to like
seek help from people.
It is important to note here while many students, such as Maya, identified as middle class there
was subjectivity in how these identities were self-reported where some students may have been
classified as upper or middle class in reality. Additionally, while students from higher
socioeconomic status backgrounds may have had more access to resources that could help them
succeed in NIL, this did not mean that they necessarily felt compelled to pursue NIL
opportunities.
As was highlighted briefly in the Values Based Rejection section, students who came
from higher socioeconomic status backgrounds were more likely to opt out of NIL opportunities.
These decisions were impacted by a variety of factors including not feeling it was necessary to
pursue NIL opportunities with their current financial status and also the perception that the

129
financial and professional benefits were not worth the time and labor it would take to engage in
NIL activities. Keith provides his perspective on this:
I think for like lower class people, I feel like if you're like an elite athlete, you're
going to maybe go to a school where you can find it an NIL deal that'll get you
the most amount of money or a higher amount of scholarship. Personally, for me,
it didn't really affect my decision. I feel like I'm... somewhere between middle and
upper class and I feel like I'm at a point where I can't get like a huge NIL deal…
personally, I'd rather be focusing on my studies and sport rather than, you know,
spending time doing that.
Conversely, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more enthusiastic to pursue
NIL activities to achieve a measure of financial stability regardless of the work required.
Additionally, these students were also likely to mention their family’s potential stability as a
factor influencing their decisions to pursue NIL activities. One intriguing, potentially troubling
aspect of participants reflections on class differences was that many students who did not
identify as being from working class or lower income backgrounds speculated on what factors
might be motivating for lower income students to pursue opportunities. These perspectives often
centered around narratives of students overcoming difficult situations, trying to advance their
fortunes and their family fortunes through NIL. While these perspectives seemed like attempts to
empathize, at times they ventured into near-deficit perspectives. Below is one such example from
an interview with Jermaine:
I thought of something afterwards. So I feel like, especially the kids
coming out of high school. If they're in a less fortunate situation, like…you
know, a lower class, I feel like they might pursue like, the high end NIL deals
mor aggressively then perhaps like someone in like a middle class or upper class,
because maybe they want to have money to send back to their family. ‘Oh, if I can
get $100,000 off this, you know, they might maybe not think as much of the
implications of it, or kind of jump into it more impulsively because they're
thinking about… they haven't had that much. They want to have something when
to give back to their family back home. So I feel like they might be more
aggressive in their pursuit of NIL deals.

130
Students from higher socioeconomic status were far less likely to mention their families as
sources of motivation or pressures to seek out NIL deals, several mentioned that their families
were essentially indifferent towards these opportunities. While there is some room for analyzing
the ideologies informing these kinds of narratives, there is some credence to the idea that there
are class differences informing motivations behind pursuing NIL deals, with one of them being
the prospects for levels of social mobility.
Even with the variability within NIL income opportunities, students from lower
socioeconomic status backgrounds were more likely to express optimism about the likelihood
that NIL could impact their lives for the better. These perspectives varied across sports type and
athlete year as well; some athletes focused more so on the ability to have a level of financial
independence, while older athletes thought more about the opportunity to save money and land
professional opportunities. One student, Olivia, spoke about the potential impact of NIL on her
life despite the nuances:
I didn't grow up. wealthy or rich. I was pretty poor. So like, NIL deals, any deal
that comes across my platform, I'm appreciative of it because without having NIL
implemented, I wouldn't have been able to get like that $50 or that $100. So, yeah
I try to look at it from a different lens, because everybody's not going to be able to
make $1,000 or everybody's not going to be like [football players at my school],
half million dollar deals with [notable brands]. And you have to start somewhere
too. So I started little and then hopefully by the time I become a senior or grad
student, I'll have a bigger platform and a better name for myself. That way it can
lead me to having more opportunities.
Perspectives like Olivia’s spoke to the hope that NIL could have over the course of a collegiate
athlete’s career and the hopefulness for the types of opportunities it could bring even at smaller
levels of scale for athletes of lower socioeconomic status backgrounds. For these students,
pursuing NIL opportunities provided a potential pathway forward that was unavailable to
collegiate athletes before them, even if it required them to commit to levels of additional labor

131
that collegiate athletes before them did not have to deal with. With the assortment of factors
influencing athletes’ motivations for pursuing NIL opportunities and variation in opportunities
and outcomes, concerns over whether various athletes deserved the opportunities they were
receiving was a point of contention for various athletes.
Merit-worthiness
Athletes from more marginalized contexts, including women’s athletes, athletes from
Olympic Sports, and international collegiate athletes were more likely to address concerns of
merit-worthiness within the NIL landscape. This was understandable given the numerous barriers
that athletes in these contexts faced to obtain opportunities. Concerns over merit-worthiness
largely discussed concerns of international athletes who felt they contributed equally to their
teams and sport as their domestic teammates, and concerns of athletes who felt those with
platforms were receiving more opportunities despite lacking the athletic credentials to match
their platform status.
For international students, frustration over not being able to participate in the NIL
landscape led to sharp critiques of the way NIL policies functioned, citing their accomplishments
alongside their domestic teammates and the reality of being forced to be consigned to their
current financial situation simply due to where they were born. One student Tiffany explained
the following:
People just assume like ‘oh my gosh, they have it set’ kind of thing. And then just
from me personally not being able to take part, it's kind of frustrating because it's
like, you know, you see other people getting, these amazing opportunities and
getting themselves ahead whereas I'm still here, living month by month on my
scholarship. I'm grateful for it. But it's still like, this is something that's available
to my peers that I'm equally just as good as, but I still can't take part in it so that
equal access is a big thing to me.

132
Tiffany’s comments speak to the frustrations that come with exclusion from NIL opportunities,
especially for those who felt they were equally qualified performers. These conversations also
discussed the role that athletic divisions played into merit-worthiness as some athletes noted that
athletes in lower divisions may have an easier time garnering success and parlaying that into NIL
deals due to the varying levels of competition. Frustrations over merit-worthiness also extended
to domestic athletes in Olympic sports who felt concerns that athletes with platforms would
receive disproportionate opportunities due to social media attention.
In an earlier section on performativity, it was discussed that several athletes, and
especially women felt pressures to present themselves in particular ways to get NIL
opportunities. Given the gendered nature of NIL opportunities for women’s athletes that
typically involved appearance-based opportunities, some athletes took offense to the idea that
some women could be granted NIL opportunities for their appearance over their athletic ability.
Shantel, provides one such example:
That’s why like, all the girls for the meet…, put your wig on, put your lashes on,
you put your makeup on, and it sounds outrageous to go compete like that. But
that is like 90% of like being marketable in track and field for women. And I
think that it'll be really, really big for companies to not necessarily know the
names of the people who look a certain way, but knowing the names of the people
that are actually winning, because I promise you there have been NCAA
champions that are like, killing the game, and did not have the NIL deals and like
the magnitude of like, other women in the sport, like, I don't know if you've heard
[an athlete], but like when you first talked about NIL, like that was the first
person that came to my mind, because she was like the pioneer of starting NIL in
track, and I don't have anything against her. But when she started all the NILs,
and she sponsored by [a sportswear brand] and all these things, and she was not
winning the hurdles at all, there was probably like, seven other people that were
just killing it, and eating up the hurdles in track and had nothing, like no deals at
all… I think it'd be really good for these companies to have access to someone
who's actually in the sport, who could tell them , ‘oh, yeah, like, this person is
cool, they have a following, they look a certain way. But like, these are the
people that are winning’, there's a lot of people and trying to do that you will
never know their name. But you will know the name of someone who's like, not
hating, but like they're not really doing anything. And I think it would be cool if

133
these people actually were tapped into like, both the sports world in each
sport to actually know what's going on and then be able to support people
regardless of how they look.
Shantel’s experiences highlight how in the NIL landscape mediocrity in some cases can
supersede athletic performance if the athlete in question appears to be marketable, which she
acknowledges is the primary concern of some corporate partners. It is not coincidental that most
of the women who spoke about issues of merit-worthiness in the NIL era were Black women,
who historically have been among the most marginalized members of the collegiate sports
landscape and American society in general. For women who face so many barriers to
prominence, the issue of merit-worthiness was especially frustrating, and these feelings were
complicated by the clearly important role that having a strong social media platform played into
navigating the NIL landscape successfully.
Power of Platform
Perhaps the most recurring theme across different elements of collegiate athletes’
experiences was discussion of the impact that platforms have on NIL opportunities. Platforms
here refer not only to social media platforms, but also platforms provided by their institution
through marketing efforts. Students discussed platform in many cases as the most influential
aspect in success within the NIL landscape. The discussions of platform largely centered around
its influence in obtaining and sustaining NIL successes and the impacts university platforms can
have on athlete successes.
Athletes across racial groups, genders, classes, and sport types were all very aware of the
fact that having relevance on social media would lead to greater NIL opportunities and being
seen by companies as worthwhile investments. Developing social media skills enabled athletes to
build their own brand, generate experience with content creation, and familiarize themselves

134
with a potential fanbase. Where in previous eras of college sports, being the most talented athlete
was a secure gateway to achieving some level of prominence, in the NIL era this is idea is more
complicated. As was briefly mentioned in the merit-worthiness section, several athletes spoke to
the idea that in some cases, being more marketable via social media was more relevant than
being a successful athlete. Olivia offers the following:
I do feel like here at [my school], there's a disconnect between like athletes who
already have a platform versus athletes that don't have a platform. Because like,
we have [ a university provided NIL resource] and that helps though, I don't
know if they like have NIL deals for people or like they introduce them to certain
things. But it's typically for people who already have a name for themselves. And
yeah, like the people who don't have a name for themselves, it's like harder
because you have to go out or not only find different brand ambassadors to get
you NIL deals…how good you are in your sport? Well, I feel like that's the main
thing. And then like your social media presence as well, because like, nobody
wants to give a deal to somebody… like if I had a company, I would rather give a
deal to somebody had like 5000 followers over 2000 followers, because it'll
reach a larger audience.
Olivia’s observations note that social media relevance signals to potential brand partners that
they can provide value through introducing their products to larger audiences. Larger social
media followings also provided larger potential for their content to go viral. Students also noted
that corporate pursuits of virality would also lead them to give endorsement deals to athletes or
teams who are currently trending and have high visibility. Shantel shared this insight on a trend
in advertisements following the 2022 March Madness tournament:
I don't think it's always about the platform. I think it's a lot about visibility,
[companies] choose the most visible athletes over the most talented athletes, it
seems like to me because when [the news segment anchors] were talking about
the Final Four and Doug from St. Peter's, I don't think a lot of companies wanted
to sign someone from St. Peter's because it's not a big school. But it was the fact
that St. Peters went on a run in NCAA basketball tournament. And then they kept
playing and everyone was watching, then that athlete was super visible and he
was doing good. And that's what made companies want to sign him instead of just
the school's name and his name. And I think that that's where like a lot of inequity

135
comes in, because of how schools markets sports over others… that's where a lot
of inequity comes in, regardless of gender or sport or anything like that.
Shantel’s observations note the role that trendiness played in opportunities for the St. Peter’s
men’s basketball team following their March Madness run and the desire for corporations to
have a constant awareness of what is currently trending. In addition to the emphasis that potential
business partners place among large social media followings, in several ways athletes spoke to
how they felt their higher education institutions also prioritized platforms in their distribution of
platforming opportunities.
Athletes in Olympic sports and women’s sports in particular were more likely to report
that they felt they were not promoted as much as their counterparts in men’s sports or revenue
generating sports like basketball and football. Internal platforming in this context referred to the
frequency of athletes appearing on billboards, official university social media accounts, and other
promotional materials for their sports. While athletes in these sports were aware of the financial
dynamics that impact attention paid to more revenue generating sports, there were frustrations
over the inequities in marketing, especially as it occurs on social media and on campus. Naomi
lamented the following:
I think like, where the frustration [particularly for] women is coming into play is
the fact that it's not an equal distribution…you don't see us being promoted as
much. I think that's kind of where, my frustration is with this in my own space,
the focus of it. Even if it's not the same dollar amount, which is totally
understandable... I think that we should at least equally market ourselves. That
way we could get put out there, I don't think that [my school is] doing the best job
at that… just by going through social media alone, I think you could name half of
the starters on the football team. But I don't think you could name any of the other
female sports just based on how much you post about each individual. Even
though like our other athletes are doing some amazing things. I don't know them
by name just simply because they aren't being promoted as much. And that's
where NIL starts, like people knowing you, people following you.

136
Naomi’s observations indicate that failures of her institution to equitably promote women’s
sports can ultimately perpetuate the inequities of attention in women’s sports, while also
hindering her opportunity to cultivate a following of her own. In Naomi’s perspective, this is
how inequities in NIL opportunities can persist through disparate institutional investment,
despite incredible accomplishments of women’s athletes. Student’s awareness of how their
institutions value prominence on social media platforms for endorsing athletes also extended to
some athletes’ perspectives on how platforms could impact potential recruiting practices in the
future. Lynn, a cross country athlete, shared a fear of hers about the future of recruiting in the
NIL era.
Yeah, I think that's an important point that like schools would bring in someone
just because…there's some athletes that even as high schoolers, already have a
following. And schools would be more drawn to recruit them if they know they're
going to bring them in more money. But like, at the same time, I don't know... I
feel like schools would still think about the fact that like a better athlete is gonna
bring them in more [money] eventually.
Lynn’s concerns highlight the idea that higher education institutions may at some point look at
the value potential recruits can bring in terms of social media following and the attention, and
money it would bring to their institutions and their respective sports. Athletes throughout a study
demonstrated an awareness of the power that platforms have to generate NIL opportunities and
financial opportunities generally. Additionally, they were also aware of the role various
institutions play in their ability to navigate the NIL landscape successfully.
Institutional Impacts
While initial discourses of NIL have discussed the impact of NIL on recruitment, athlete
movement via the transfer portal, and other various microlevel implications of NIL policies,
considerably less space in the public NIL discourse has focused on the role of non-NCAA
institutions in the implementation of NIL policies. Within this fourth theme, collegiate athletes

137
shared their perspectives on various institutional stakeholders who not only stand to benefit from
their participation in NIL opportunities but can also shape how they experience the NIL
landscape. Topics in this theme discuss how athletes appraised various institutional stakeholders,
the role of corporate interests in their NIL experience, and the variation in how NIL policies are
implemented in different contexts.
Institutional Appraisals
The hypothetical redistribution activity enabled athletes within the study to share their
perspectives on which stakeholders should be most centered within the NIL process.
Unsurprisingly, majority of athletes allocated most of the NIL revenue shares to themselves, a
complete breakdown of the revenue allocations can be found below in Figure 3. Yet their
rationales for how much other stakeholders should benefit reflected an awareness of how they as
athletes are being treated presently and how they have been treated historically. Common themes
in the appraisals of these included: a hostility towards the NCAA for historical treatment of
collegiate athletes, and feelings of gratitude towards their respective higher education
institutions.
Athletes across all backgrounds and sport types held an awareness that the historical
significance of NIL polices largely derive from the exploitative history of the NCAA and the
exclusion of athletes from receiving any revenues at all. As Andre explains: “The NCAA, I feel
like they just honestly, they've been robbing us for [ a minute]… they're always going to have
money flowing. So I don't think what I deserve should go to them at all. [laughs]”. The laugh
here was one of disdain that bristled at the idea of the NCAA getting anything at all. These kinds
of comments were commonplace during the Padlet activity, with students sharing their views of
the NCAA as a greedy organization. In discussing her rationale for allocating the NCAA 0% of

138
potential revenues, Isabel adds: “Why would I give money… definitely not to the NCAA. I feel
like they like in the past have been… almost greedy… they collect money from their television
deals and all that stuff…They wouldn't need it.” These perspectives also extended into concerns
for some athletes that eventually the NCAA would try to find ways to ask for a percentage of
income from their NIL deals. Contrarily, most students indicated feelings of warmth towards
their higher education institutions and allocated percentages accordingly.
Students acknowledged that their respective institutions played a significant role in them
having an opportunity to participate in their sport and attain a level of postsecondary education.
On average, athletes allocated 26% of potential revenues to their higher education institutions
from a place of what appeared to be genuine gratitude. Antwon explained the following rationale
for his revenue distribution: “60 for myself, 30 for the university, and 10 for [conference]
because the university, they're the ones that extended the scholarship for me to be at that school,
and the ones paying for my academics, living expenses and whatnot”. When explaining the value
of the experience she felt she received from her university, Naomi added the following:
Well, we already benefit from our school just by being student athletes, like
being full scholarship for myself personally… it’s an honor to wear my jersey and
represent my school… ultimately that is my cut, my free tuition and being able to
be in the school
While this sort of perspective aligns with those of critics opposed to NIL compensation for
athletes, Naomi’s comes from a place of gratitude, while still prioritizing receiving what she felt
an equitable share of revenues were. There were nuances within students’ rationales for
allocating more funding to their universities in comparison to other stakeholders. It is also
important to note here that students were largely indifferent towards athletic conferences and the
role they played in their personal lives. Some students expressed wanting to support athletic

139
programs that traditionally do not receive large amounts of funding. Others took a more cynical
approach, wanting to allocate revenues to the university in order to hold them accountable for
how it is being spent. Andre explains his rationale for what barriers he felt may impede a more
equitable distribution of revenues:
Cap. Just them cappin', just saying that we deserve a larger percentage because x
,y&z , or you don't know how much it costs for us to go ahead and like, conduct
the season, or you don't know how much like we spend on you as an athlete ,or
whatever the case may be, you know, and I think a lot of times they make those
points, while conveniently excluding how much they profit off of it.
It’s like you invest this, but you only invest this for a reason, because, you know,
on the back end what that number looks like. And we haven't been able to see
that number for hundreds of years. So I think that's the reason of it. I think
there's a lot of floating expenses that we don't know about, that if we would
actually look at them in detail that we find out are worthless or offer no benefits
us. You know, those are a few reasons I can see at the moment as to why like it
may not be split, at least close to this.
Andre’s concerns illustrate the need for institutional transparency for how they exactly they are
investing in students especially given the historical exploitation of collegiate athletes. Students
demonstrated an affinity for their higher education institutions but also wanted them to act in
equitable ways on their behalf. Additionally, students spoke to the impacts of differences in NIL
policies and the ways they enabled or constrained equitable actions.
Implementation Variance
Since NIL originated as a state policy, policymakers are another group of institutional
stakeholders responsible for shaping the NIL experience. Especially given the numerous efforts
from NCAA administrators to pursue federal NIL legislation, it was imperative for students to
share their perspectives on these policies and how it impacted their lives. Students largely
discussed the variances in state laws and how the influence the ability to navigate the NIL
landscape successfully.

140
While students in the study had varying levels of knowledge about NIL as a state policy,
after learning through the news segment that laws varied amongst states some students did have
insights on how confusing it would be to have to navigate NIL differently according to different
state contexts. Cooper shared the following:
I definitely think it's interesting how different states have different regulations
on NIL. Like, we're talking about the different advantages for recruiting and I feel
like that's really not how it should be because it just doesn't make any sense why
one school would be able to offer more to a recruit through NIL just
because of their state's laws.
A few other students shared thoughts similar to Cooper’s. Other students who transferred from
other institutions shared their lived experiences on having to navigate NIL laws in two different
state contexts. Shantel shared one such experience:
I went to [a different school] prior to coming to [my current school]. So it was
really, really big for the basketball teams there. But like nobody else, then coming
to [my current school] I mean, and then having our football team be so big... Also
the compliance differs between [the two schools], the rules, and the
regulations even though and each school implements it. Each school's own rules
are completely different. So I kind of had to go through learning what was
permissible at one place isn't necessarily the same here.
For a student to transfer to a new school, into a new team and athletic department, while also
needing to learn new state and university policies for NIL is a lot to ask for any student, let alone
collegiate athletes. Shantel’s experiences illustrate how variance in implementations of state NIL
laws can add to confusion and stress for collegiate athletes. Additionally, variance in state laws
can also impact how students conduct their NIL activities and brand-building. Lisa expressed
some of the barriers she faces due to her state’s NIL laws:
So the [school] logo in anything that they have that recognizes them as
[school] we can't use, but say for instance, like a Kentucky student athlete, they
can wear their Kentucky gear no matter what in any other forms of NIL deals all
together. But with us like we can't have [university identifiers] we can't have
[initials] we can't really have like colors that resemble that. We can't have…
anything that anybody can recognize as [my school]… in our in NIL deals.

141
Lisa’s state laws prevent her from utilizing school identifiers within their NIL deals, this can be
an impediment to building a brand and fanbase. The university logos and associated identifiers
allow the athlete to signal to fans and potential brand partners that they are affiliated with their
universities in an official capacity, and this could expand students’ networks in ways they would
not be able to without the university affiliation. Additionally, for students who had established a
brand or consistent means of content creation in one state may have to adjust their practices to be
compliant with new state laws. Failure to comply could result in losses of scholarships and other
disciplinary action. The variation between state NIL laws had both theoretical and tangible
implications for collegiate athletes within the study. In addition to having to navigate the policy
differences in different contexts, athletes also discussed the role of corporate interests in their
NIL experiences.
Corporate Interests
Collegiate athletes shared that successfully navigating the NIL landscape requires an
awareness of what things businesses are looking for in potential partners. Their assessment of
what things businesses were interested in largely centered around generating profits and
advancing their products in spaces where the business could not have gotten to on their own.
Students felt they were being offered compensation to help businesses achieve this goal. As a
result, athletes within the study felt that in order to be good business partners they needed to
demonstrate that they would provide a return on investment. Perspectives on what constituted a
return on investment varied across sport types. Victor explains the following:
I mean, especially from like the Olympic sport perspective… Kevin said, they
want a return on investment and that return on investment isn't gonna be you
paying the money but they're gonna want some type of return on investment…
If you're like a star football quarterback, like the return on investment is very
easy. You know, you're visible, you're on TV, you get interviewed all the time,

142
there are people who are gonna see that you say you use something and they're
gonna go back to get it you know what I mean? When you come from a less
lucrative sports space…you have to make yourself invaluable and that has to
become a really core part of your athletic identity. It's show them with why you
add value to their space, not just, hey, I want to work with you because I want
that money.
Victor’s perspective speaks to not only how he felt he was being perceived by other companies
who may be considering partnering with him for endorsement activities, but he also speaks to
how athletes in Olympic sports may have to do additional labor in order to present themselves as
suitable business partners. Additionally, several athletes spoke to the ways that they felt that
corporate interests were being protected by current NIL policies. As Carter explained: “For [my
school], we can't do anything that conflicts with the university's [sportswear] agreement. And
maybe as an athlete, having more options…in terms of sporting attire, and sport companies,
[brand] competitors to Nike could be… better for the athlete.”. Carter’s perspective speaks to the
idea that his university’s and the sportswear brand’s bottom line are both protected by current
NIL policies, restricting the opportunities available to collegiate athletes in order to not
jeopardize the existing business relationship between the brand and institution. From the
institution’s standpoint, their apparel contract will likely be in place long after Carter graduates
unless a more beneficial deal comes along. So for them, it does not make sense for them to
jeopardize their apparel deal so that individual athletes can benefit, that of course would make
them bad business partners. This reiterates the complexities of the NIL landscape, where athletes,
institutions, and corporate entities have to be aware of how their image is being presented.
Athletes also spoke to the complexities of how their image is not only presented in potential NIL
deals, but also how that image is leveraged.
Complexities of Representation
Participants within the study across backgrounds noted the importance of presenting their

143
image properly to attract NIL opportunities, but it was athletes from more marginalized social
locations who were more likely to comment on how their image was being presented publicly.
Student comments in this subtheme paid more attention to the racialized and gendered dynamics
of how various identity groups were portrayed by corporate entities particularly. For some
athletes, the idea of being represented in any meaningful capacity was encouraging, yet for other
athletes, it was understood that this representation could also be leveraged for marketing
purposes.
Black women within the study were the most likely to identify how media representation
of marginalized groups were important for motivating other potential athletes that achieving a
level of prominence in sport, and college sports particularly, was possible. In the video elicitation
activity, there was mention of a Muslim woman who had created viral social media content in
basketball while playing, and her story resonated with several participants such as Ang who
offered the following:
I don't think it's how I view NIL it's more like well, maybe, okay, maybe with
NIL I feel like race, religion and stuff like that is important to me... it's important,
I think, to have those like representations in NIL to motivate other people of that
group… and see like this is possible for you to be in this position too one day. For
example, the woman who is Muslim and she plays basketball, I forgot her name,
but I, I've seen her and I like know her story... I just feel like that was important
that they highlighted her … her story really did motivate like other young girls in
Islam to think that it's okay to play basketball and stuff like that…I think those
things matter.
Ang connected with the idea of being seen as a role model for girls within a marginalized
community. These viewpoints were echoed by several other Black women within the study as
well. Olivia added the following:
I'm a first-generation student. If I was to get an NIL deal with…any company, I
felt like that can help other people from my community... to know that they can
get to a level where I am and compete in sports and be successful. Also being a
Black woman in my event, especially, it's not commonly seen.

144
For athletes who have historically been denied media attention and prominence, NIL
opportunities presented a way to demonstrate possibilities for future generations of college
athletes. Some athletes though observed nuances in the ways that various groups were being
represented within NIL opportunities. While some spoke to the ways that women were portrayed
and the types of opportunities available, a few spoke to the racial nuances of how some athletes
were being portrayed. The following is an excerpt from a conversation with Nyla where she
discusses some of these nuances:
Nyla: I feel like I've looked at some of the things that like Black athletes get and
some deals that white athletes get they're very different sometimes… I don't know
exactly how to describe it…I always use football but some of the deals that like
Black football athletes get compared to like white football athletes…I feel like
there's a big difference sometimes.
Isaiah Simmons: When you say different are you talking about different in terms
of the type of companies that they or the types of brands that the partnerships are
with or the dollar amounts, what exactly were you talking about in terms of
difference?
Nyla: I would say more so not even the company but, what the company has them
doing to… promote their identity.
Isaiah Simmons: Okay, that makes that makes sense. So I don't want to make
assumptions, but you're saying like in terms of what they're doing or you're
talking about more demonstrating, like playing their sport? Is there an example
that you have in mind?
Nyla: Yeah, I would say, kind of how they demonstrate or…where it's always it's
kind of like, people they have to struggle or something…they showed their
struggles they go through… with white people it's not really a struggle thing.
While there were some difficulties in elaborating on some of the racialized dynamics in Nyla’s
interview, the acknowledgment of these issues existing was a concern. Additionally, the
concerns over how genuine the reasons were for highlighting marginalized groups were not only
reflected in Nyla’s excerpt, but also several others who acknowledged that highlighting

145
marginalized athletes could also enable businesses and institutions like the NCAA to expand into
new demographics.
The evolution of NIL policies over time has included opposition from higher education
institutions, the NCAA, media pundits, and college coaches among others over time. Yet
currently, there is a widespread optimism about the benefits of NIL from the aforementioned
parties as well as students. Many athletes within the study spoke to how other stakeholders could
benefit from them monetizing their NIL rights, some more cynically than others. Some athletes
spoke to how NIL presented opportunities to themselves and other stakeholders in ways that
allowed for a mutually beneficial relationship. Carter, speaking about these opportunities
pondered the following:
It shows like how much opportunity there is for everybody and it's very inclusive
with the deals because everybody…has like a target audience that they have…
built a following. So whatever companies would like to reach that following,
whether it's like a basketball fan base, or like [a] diversity fan base, they can
utilize that to help benefit both the athlete and the company as well. And so
there's opportunities for everybody, you know, where it doesn't matter, like what
sport you do, or where you're from, or what your like interests are
Those who shared perspectives like Carter’s saw a space to create a niche lane within the NIL
landscape for themselves and create opportunities for representation by addressing audiences that
companies currently lack the with the cultural capital to engage with. Others within the study
though did acknowledge that they felt they were in essence being used specifically for their
access to these populations. Consider Megan’s quote:
I think it also highlights how powerful having a platform is, like how social media
can like help you build your path, your platform and your brand. And I think
that's what l these companies are more into…what they care about the most is
obviously selling their product. So they're kind of using your platform to sell their
product to your fan base. You know, which is fine because at least you're getting
paid for it.

146
Megan’s perspective illuminates an awareness of the way that collegiate athletes are pursued for
their cultural relevance and access to untapped potential audiences. While Megan demonstrated
an acceptance to a degree of this behavior because of compensation, acknowledgment that it was
taking place was significance because it critiques the motives of potential business partners. The
complex variations in perspectives on representation inform how collegiate athletes were making
sense of corporate influence on the NIL landscape. Accounting for the influence of higher
education institutions and policymakers as well led many athletes in the study to reimagine how
the NIL landscape could work better for them.
Reimagining NIL
The newness of NIL policies as an idea was very salient for athletes throughout the study
and they were largely encouraged by the possibilities of how NIL could look several years from
now. Many students had suggestions for ways that NIL policies could be reshaped to be more
equitable, inclusive, and personalized to collegiate athletes’ benefits. This final theme shares
athletes’ points of emphasis for ways NIL could be improved for the future.
Financial Education
The NIL Benefits theme discussed that some of the most cherished NIL benefits for
students were the post-college benefits they would be able to utilize. It then was sensible that
when asked how students would like to see NIL changed for the better, many of them mentioned
wanting more opportunities to cultivate these post college skills, the most mentioned one being
opportunities to cultivate financial literacy. Building financial literacy skills were important to
athletes who wanted to increase awareness of the tax implications of NIL deals and how taxes
could impact their wellbeing, especially given the variance in the compensation for NIL deals.
When discussing some of the misconceptions around NIL Samantha clarifies:

147
I think the communication around a lot of these deals and what… goes into it, I
don't think that's communicated very well. For example, obviously, you have to
pay taxes on all your NIL deals, and I feel like a lot of people that get into these
deals don't know that. So there's no other people kind of on the same deal that I'm
on. And I don't think they're aware that they're gonna have to be paying taxes on
all this money that they're making. So I think that's just miscommunicated.
Samantha’s experience highlights that the lack of financial literacy education could lead to
athletes being harmed in the NIL space, especially since the variation of deals would result in
different tax percentages that would need to be paid. Additionally, some students also spoke of
varying levels on information they received from their institution, further complicating their
approaches to managing their money. Jermaine provides one example:
I think like what Andre said about the financial literacy…that’s probably
something they need to integrate. Because a lot of the times, we have our little
compliance meeting, all they said was make sure you put all your deals in the
[university provided app] And then you got people on the team, like the older
guys talking about it, ‘make sure you set some aside for taxes.’ Like they
(compliance) never really mentioned that. So I feel like that's something that they
need to integrate to make sure these guys know what they're really doing with
their money. Because if not, and you have all these, like back taxes, and you're
audited and stuff like that… you're completely confused, because no one told you.
Jermaine’s experiences spoke to the ways that teammates can serve as a sounding board to help
them make sense of the NIL landscape. Additionally, his comments highlight the ways that even
when institutions provide some level of resource for students that there is a need to provide
additional navigational capital to help collegiate athletes make sense of the financial implications
of NIL. Students also shared perspectives on ways that institutions could provide some of this
navigational capital, whether it was offering courses, seminars, workshops, or even identifying
legal resources as Kevin shares when discussing potential ways to change NIL practices:
So for me, find[ing] a way to help these athletes manage this money, like these
18,17 year old’s getting 8 million dollars and these kids are getting more money
than college coaches, professors, teachers, basically, they are above the 1% before
they even hit 25 . I feel like I don't know probably have like a financial advisor or,

148
or like someone of that magnitude, to be able to help them manage their money
because they not getting a full 8 million, There's so many loopholes so many cuts
get when they sign a contract they probably don't even know about until it's too
late. So I just feel like we need to get somebody, a lawyer or something, or have
like, multiple classes where you bring in people, teach them how to read
contracts, teach them how to negotiate, and show them how to manage that large
amount of money and how to, you know, deal with life once you get the money.
Kevin speaks to the realities that for students who are considered elite athletes, they are being
catapulted to new economic heights without much additional assistance from their institutions.
While Kevin does speak to the experiences of financial outliers within his quote, several other
students expressed desires similar to Kevin’s that could be implemented at scale based on where
the athlete is in their career. This was but one of several alternative solutions athletes within the
study developed.
Alternative Solutions
In observing some of the inefficiencies and inequities of NIL policies, collegiate athletes
thought of several potential solutions that could make the NIL experience a better one for them.
Their experiences addressed various institutional stakeholders, as well as advocated for ways for
various teammates across backgrounds to be included. Common experiences centered the
distribution of opportunities, as well as the inclusion of marginalized athlete groups.
Several athletes addressed the variance of NIL deals and the information provided about
them as an opportunity to call on their higher education institutions to leverage their resources to
serve them better. Calvin imagines an NIL future where collegiate athletes were secured at a base
financial level by their institutions:
Calvin: I was interested in, if there was like a base, like a minimum base salary.
And that's something that hasn't happened… but I think that's something that will
benefit everyone more I feel like as opposed to… just doing things through like a
platform or media, because that's not for everyone.

149
Isaiah Simmons: When you mentioned like a base? Do you mean for each athlete
being able to be compensated a certain amount?
Calvin: Like, yeah, more, percentage wise, from the actual, like NCAA or school
as opposed to outside brands?
Isaiah Simmons: Oh, okay. Gotcha. I see what you're saying. Just for an example
So at your school, essentially, if they made 5 million in terms of revenues for the
year just throwing out a number, you're saying, it would be helpful if the
individual athlete got like a percentage split, like have that revenue?
Calvin: Yeah. And then based off like jersey sales, or ticket purchases, like, I
don't know how you would divvy it up.. but have a base kind of for everyone.
Calvin’s idea of a base salary for athletes to be paid a minimum salary in accordance with
revenues is an idea that has been circulated in media discourses as a logically potential
conclusion to the evolution of NIL policies. The topic of collegiate athlete compensation has a
long and contentious history, but Calvin’s suggestion here places athlete compensation in the
context of a greatly varying NIL landscape that enables institutions to benefit even more from
collegiate athletes’ labor. Other athletes within the study though asked their institutions to
leverage their programming resources to improve equitable access to NIL opportunities. Bruce
compared it functioning similar to how the career center at his institution functions: “You know,
in a job… the career center, you go, the university has these companies… you'd be able to go
and send the resume, that'd be a lot more convenient for the athletes being able to just present
themselves”. Bruce’s suggestion provides institutions with a model that could be followed that
was already in existence within his university context. Similarly, Catherine offers the following
idea for how a resource like this could function in the athletic department’s context:
I think it would be really, really helpful if the school like [or] somewhere in the
athletic department, if they had someone, they can almost like match you with
deals or like, I know, like in [resource] last year, they were kind of talking about
they hired like an outside person. This might be [university resource], but I don't
think if that were, like, if they had a larger presence, I think that would be really
helpful because I like personally like to get involved, I wouldn't even know where

150
to start. Or even if there was a brand that I was like ‘Oh, that could be a good
partnership’. I wouldn't even know who to reach out to or l how to approach that,
so I think just like helping you get started would be a big deal.
Catherine identifies specific areas of need a career-center adjacent support could provide within
the athletic department’s context that would be helpful for collegiate athletes moving forward in
understanding the NIL landscape better. Other athletes had insights for ways that practices could
be implemented to create opportunities for fellow students.
Advocacy for international collegiate athletes was another recurring idea within the
reimagined NIL future athletes shared. Many of them speaking on behalf of their teammates
wondered how institutions such as the NCAA and policymakers could be held accountable for
developing potential policies that would enable international students to benefit from NIL
activities without jeopardizing their visa status. One example in particular spoke to how NIL
revenues could be disclosed in a way that could create more room for international athletes to
benefit from increased scholarship opportunities. Samantha shares:
The deal I'm on… I'm getting paid to do the stuff with this company, but it's
enough to cover like my tuition and living expenses. And there's a lot of other
people on my team doing that. And that kind of frees up more scholarships for
others. So I feel like it would free up more scholarships for international students
that way too. Because like, if we're if like some of us are getting scholarships,
basically from an NIL deal, then there's like, 10 extra ones floating around for
international students who can't do this. But then I feel like what if NIL can
actually be a thing for international students, that frees up even more for
people… because I know there's some people on our team that struggle paying
rent and stuff like that .
Samantha’s solution sees NIL as an opportunity to reallocate university resources in an equitable
fashion so that even if NIL opportunities cannot exist for NIL, there can be mechanisms in place
that allow them to be covered through scholarships. In this vision, NIL opportunities are not
framed as an opportunity to solely hoard resources but redistribute them based on need. Students

151
noted a variety of alternatives that could improve NIL from their current form, yet all of these
solutions required support from their higher education institutions.
Institutional Support
Athletes within the study spoke to the ways they wanted their institutions to support them
as they tried to navigate the NIL landscape to ensure they would be informed, protected, and
equitably promoted as they engage in sensemaking around NIL policies.
For many students, their primary concerns were finding resources to help them navigate
NIL opportunities. Ideas for support they had discussed included providing educational
opportunities such as: financial education courses, teaching brand building skills, courses in
entrepreneurship, and marketing along with other skills. Maya spoke to some of these realities of
potential programming:
In terms of like, more resources in terms of learning how to build a name, build a
brand, like, maybe that's a certain class that can be for athletes that still like
contributes to graduating because nobody wants to take a class that does not help
them graduate. So maybe some sort of Intro to NIL class, or like just certain
classes that athletes could take to learn more, whether it'd be like in the
summer or during Fall or Spring semesters…
Building upon the idea of institution-led programming, some students also spoke to the role that
their coaches and other actors within the athletic department to help them develop navigational
capital. Savannah offers the following:
I know some coaches will go out and market their players like crazy and come
back with a handful of deals. But there's others who strictly worry about coaching
… or recruiting but I think while it also falls on us, like a huge part of it is the
coaches to help bring in opportunities for us.
Jimmy and Keith in their conversations also note potential programming opportunities athletic
departments could conduct:
Jimmy: I mean, from the University, even if we did like an athletics event
night where they just settled the athletes down and went over the entire process

152
with us, like, once a semester or once a year. I think that'd be helpful with a lot of
other things
Keith: I think they did that like kind of each sport individually a little bit, but I
think just doing it a little more might help or maybe once every month or every
two months something to kind of keep us informed because there's a lot changing
each month in at least from what I've heard in that realm. Since it's kind of
relatively new, so maybe keeping us up to date with kind of like what the newest
things are going on.
Jimmy: Yeah, exactly like I think we've gotten an NIL presentation shown to us,
maybe once but to get that more regularly would be nice.
Savannah, Jimmy, and Keith, speak to the various ways that the constant evolution of the NIL
landscape requires support from all parties within the athletic department to be available at least
for conversation, with athletic department personnel developing ways to provide athletes with a
stable source of knowledge on NIL related matters. Ultimately, perhaps the most recurring note
that students mentioned was seeking institutional support to provide equitable opportunities to
maximize their NIL potential. They did not express expectations for equal compensation, but
they wanted to have the support to maximize the opportunities within their own athletic contexts.
Antwon, a men’s basketball player, summarizes this thought:
I think what's missing is just like, being very specific on how everyone can eat,
essentially. Like how different sports are able to leverage, because obviously,
we know, basketball, and football are the main sports that are bringing in the
revenue to schools, but like, what are other ways for like, track athletes or rugby
athletes to make money? And how a school can help educate us on how
to brand ourselves, essentially. I feel like that's a key part
The awareness and imagination of collegiate athletes within this study can be instructive for
ways that NIL policies can be implemented in more equitable fashions which will be discussed
in the following chapter.

153
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter provides a discussion that places the study’s findings in conversation with
aforementioned bodies of literature on collegiate athletes, exploitation under amateurism,
narratives around paying collegiate athletes, as well as the conceptual framework. The discussion
will be followed by conclusions from the study. Finally, the chapter concludes with implications
for policy, practice, and future research.
Discussion
This research study aimed to center NIL policies within college sports to examine the
impact of policy narratives: how they are constructed, how they influence policy implementation,
and the equity implications of these narratives are some of the considerations of this study. NIL
policies within college sports have been framed by many as being a transformative policy
development that could provide some level of fairness within the college sports landscape that
could signal the end of athlete exploitation associated with amateurism. This study sought to
complicate the understanding of NIL policy narratives by examining the lived policy outcomes
of collegiate athletes as they navigate the world of college sports in NIL’s infancy stages. The
findings of this study illuminate that in navigating NIL, several of student’s musings on the
current college sports landscape support earlier empirical studies’ criticisms of the NCAA under
amateurism. These findings can be instructive on how policy narratives can be critiqued to
advocate for equitable policy and practice implementation both in higher education policies, as
well as public policy in general.
Many authors have noted from the outset of modern intercollegiate athletics in the United
States, elitism, under the guise of amateurism, has been a distinguishing feature of college sports
(Hextrum, 2018; McCullough & Subketkaew, 2014; Moyer, 2015; Porto, 2016). Under the

154
conceptual restraints of amateurism, sport was viewed as a luxury and clear lines were drawn to
distinguish the elites from the laboring classes (Moyer, 2015; Porto, 2016). Under amateurism,
those who benefitted the most from collegiate sports were those who were best positioned to
capitalize on the collegiate sports infrastructure, which have been men, the wealthy, the socially
connected, and in many cases, white students. Over time, while access to who could participate
in intercollegiate athletics has expanded to include both racially minoritized groups and women,
the underlying principles of amateurism have created a fertile environment for exploitation and
elitism to continue to flourish, and elements of this were present in the findings of how collegiate
athletes are processing NIL policies.
While NIL policies have largely been framed as a catalyst for deviating from the
preexisting regime of amateurism, collegiate athletes have noted various inequities and
challenges to navigating the NIL space which reflect historical criticisms of the NCAA under
amateurism. Much has been written about the time commitments necessary to balance athletic
and academic schedules as a collegiate athlete, with in many cases athletes reported spending 50-
150% more time dedicated to their sports than currently NCAA bylaws currently allow for
(Porto, 2016; Shaver, 2015; California Senate Bill 206). Findings from this study reaffirm that
these time demands can be stressful for collegiate athletes, while adding that NIL activities
contribute to both the time that students are investing into their sports-related activities on a
weekly basis, as well as their overall stress levels. Given these concerns, findings from this study
noted that it is a common approach for collegiate athletes to opt out of NIL opportunities
altogether, with many of these students coming from higher socioeconomic status backgrounds.
However, for students who did choose to engage in NIL activities, students who were wealthier
and more socially connected were also able to navigate the NIL landscape more successfully

155
whether through their own personal networks, or through being able to secure help via agent
representation. This finding reinforces how the collegiate sports landscape and logics of
amateurism can create additional stressors for students who are minoritized on the basis of
socioeconomic status. Additionally, findings highlighted how NIL opportunities can create
additional forms of labor that reflect inequities based on gender, class, race, and revenue status.
It is unsurprising that the two largest themes of findings within the study were related to
navigating NIL, and inequities within the NIL landscape. These findings largely come within the
context of labor that needed to be done in order to reap the benefits of NIL activities.
International students expressed their frustrations over not being able to participate in NIL
opportunities despite contributing just as much labor for their sports as their domestic peers. For
women’s sports, much of the literature noted the relatively inequitable investment in women’s
sports due to the lack of revenue they generate (Fort & Winfree, 2013; Scott, 2017; Smith, 2000;
Smith, 2011). Even with advances through policies such as Title IX, women’s sports are
perpetually underfunded, under-covered in media, and are relegated to second-class status as
athletes behind men’s sports such as basketball and football (Hextrum, 2020b; Smith, 2011;
Ward, 2004; Withycombe, 2011). Findings from this study support the literature on the
inequitable investment in women’s athletics. Several women in the study noted feeling like they
did not receive ample investment opportunities from their institutions or from corporate entities,
explaining that these institutions may prefer to invest in men’s athletes in more popular sports.
To this end, women also expressed having to work harder to identify NIL opportunities, as well
as the gendered nature of opportunities they did receive which tended to focus more so on their
physical appearances than their athletic abilities finding is also in alignment with the literature
noting the sexualization of the bodies of women’s athlete’s especially for Black women

156
(Withycombe, 2011). Furthermore, recent research has also noted that of the women who do tend
to receive more NIL opportunities, they are usually women who adhere to more traditional,
Eurocentric beauty standards, further marginalizing Black women within the NIL landscape
(Bruening et al. 2005; Buckner, 2021; Ingemi, 2023; Withycombe, 2011) The conversations
around inequitable athlete labor also extended across racial lines although not in ways explicitly
consistent with the literature.
Historically, especially in revenue-generating sports, much has been written about the
exploitation of Black athletes regarding the amounts of revenue they generate for their schools
without compensation, hostile campus treatment inequitable academic opportunities and
outcomes, as well as a failure to prepare Black athletes for post-sport careers (Beamon, 2014;
Comeaux; 2018; Cooper et. al, 2019; Gayles et al., 2018; Harper, 2018; Overly, 2018; Van
Rheenen, 2013). Only one athlete in the study mentioned specifically how they felt their
Blackness was a source for exploitation as a collegiate athlete. For other Black athletes though,
other factors were more salient for reasons why they may not benefit as much from NIL
opportunities such as the sports they played, or their socioeconomic status that could impact
opportunities available to them. These findings deviated from earlier literature on Black athletes,
but they do provide opportunities for future study to examine the interaction of race and sport
type on the experiences of Black collegiate athletes, especially since much of the existing
research does center around Black athletes in revenue-generating sports contexts.
Lastly, the findings from this study spoke a lot on the experiences of athletes in Olympic
sports. These athletes are largely under-researched and their experiences speak to the ways they
felt relegated to second-class status in the NIL landscape, both by their institutions at times, as
well as with potential corporate partners for NIL opportunities. They also mentioned feeling the

157
need to perform additional labor to identify NIL opportunities, present themselves as being
marketable, and to perform the obligations associated with their NIL opportunities, despite on
average reporting their deals would be lesser financially than their revenue-generating
counterparts. Previous literature spoke to the arguments that the harms to athletes in Olympic
sports should be an argument against compensation for student athletes generally (Garthwaite et
al. 2020; McDavis, 2018; Nocera & Strauss, 2018). The findings from this study debunk this
argument as several students within the study noted that they were able to benefit financially and
professionally from NIL activities, if anything, they requested more equitable institutional
investments so that they would be able to benefit even more.
These findings speak to the idea that beyond the existing narratives on the ways that NIL
policies can benefit or harm various groups, that within the NIL context there are tiers of athletes
that are more readily recognizable as being worthy financial investments, both from an
institutional standpoint, as well as a corporate standpoint. This sort of tier-system evaluation can
be viewed as a descendent of the elitism inherent within amateurism logics from the beginning of
college sports, indicating who these policies are designed to benefit, and who merely gets to
participate through their labor in the college sports enterprise. Perhaps the most significant factor
from the findings impacting the beneficiaries of NIL, which is also conversant with earlier
literature, is the role of commercialization within the college sports landscape.
From the very beginning of college sports, commercialization and corporate sponsors
have been an essential component that have allowed for intercollegiate sports to expand,
innovate, and persist for the last century. The attention to innovations in media have also played
a significant role in the expansion of collegiate sports dating back to the rise of broadcast radio
and television in the early 20th century, to advances in network television video games, as well as

158
the rise of social media, have all forced college sports and the corporate entities investing in
them to be adaptable (O’Toole, 2013; Neimeyer, 2015; Nocera & Strauss, 2018; Sanderson &
Siegfried, 2018; Smith, 2000; Shaver, 2015). Despite all of this innovation, the one constant was
the marginalization of collegiate athletes. Findings from this study indicate that
commercialization has a strong presence in the evolution of NIL policies, implementation, and
outcomes for collegiate athletes.
In several aspects, the evolution of NIL policies reflects the next frontier in the
commercialization of collegiate athletics, which was noted in the responses of corporate entities,
higher education institutions, and the athletes themselves. To date, NIL policies have been
designed and implemented in ways that protect institutions over the athletes, for primarily
commercial means. For example, several students spoke to how in pursuing NIL opportunities
they could not pursue endorsement deals that conflicted with their institution’s existing contracts.
These sorts of policies protect the ability of their institutions to maximize their potential revenues
by presenting a team unified in their on-field presentation. These practices date back to the
1980’s where corporate sponsors would send apparel to coaches as a means of securing teamwide apparel contracts (Nocera & Strauss, 1976; Sanderson and Siegfried, 2018). Additionally,
students also spoke to instances where under state law they were not able to wear any apparel
that had any institutional branding in any NIL deal appearances. These sorts of policies seek to
protect the institution’s brand from any adverse publicity. However, in actuality, these sorts of
policies undermine the ability of the athlete to leverage their status and affiliation as athletes at
their respective institutions to signal to prospective fans and brand partners that they are
marketable. Findings from this study illustrate how these NIL policy restrictions can function as
examples of interest convergence and contribute to that body of literature (Donnor, 2005;

159
Ferguson & Davis, 2015; Harper, 2009; Hodge et al. 2008; Theune, 2009). While athletes have
the opportunity to benefit on some level from financial compensation for their labor, their
compensation can only occur if it does not directly interfere with that of their higher education
institution or the NCAA, especially since these institutions are prevented from compensating
collegiate athletes directly (Bell, 1980;2000). Throughout the study, students also spoke about
the myriad ways in which corporate entities as well perpetuate the interest convergence within
NIL policies.
Many students spoke to the idea that the primary goal of businesses is to make money
and they saw their NIL business partnerships in this light as well. The findings on corporate
interests spoke to the ways that collegiate students have to navigate what businesses value in
order to attain NIL opportunities and perform the obligations associated with them to reap the
benefits. Findings also indicated that students were aware of how they could contribute to
businesses. Several students discussed their familiarity with social media and access to youthful
demographics, others spoke to unique individual factors such as race, ethnicity, and interests they
could leverage to reach new audiences for their corporate partners. This awareness of ways their
individuality could be leveraged to expand corporate reach also speaks to aspects of interest
convergence. Although the students in this study did not describe it in this way, the realities they
described reflected how corporate entities were leveraging aspects of collegiate athletes’
identities to expand their potential brand reach. Efforts to expand this reach and the inequities
perpetuated by this interest convergence can be seen in the emphasis that many students placed
on the power of having social media platforms.
Both collegiate athletes and the institutions they are affiliated with understand the
importance of having a strong presence on social media platforms. Both groups also utilize them

160
for brand building purposes. For institutions in particular, it became clear that social media also
represented the next frontier in terms of commercialization, and their investment patterns
highlighted the importance of winning social media relevance. Findings from this study
demonstrated that collegiate athletes were aware of what brands were looking for in the ideal
business partner: someone who had a strong social media following and could expand brand
reach. This demonstrated itself in the patterns of athletes they noted as receiving the most
frequent and most lucrative deals: athletes in revenue generating sports, men’s sports, athletes
who appear to conventional beauty and attractiveness standards, and athletes with large social
media followings. These represent what are viewed as the “safest” investment bets for corporate
entities as they represent proven models for what can generate revenue from a marketing
standpoint. The problem with this though is it creates inequities in opportunity and investment
despite the fact that athletes outside of these groups perform the same amount, if not more, labor
associated with their sport. While NIL policies do create opportunities for collegiate athletes to
pursue compensation opportunities through endorsements, it is also important to acknowledge
the existing longstanding inequities within the fields of business and marketing that have
excluded marginalized groups historically. Findings from this study can contribute to the
literature on the commercialization of college sports by indicating NIL as the next frontier of
commercialization and acknowledging how interest convergence is influential in this phase of
NIL policy implementation. Yet, despite this, findings from this study also indicate that as they
always have, collegiate athletes are constantly reimagining ways to make the college sports
landscape a more equitable one.
The history of collegiate sports is filled with examples of athletes challenging the status
quo, whether through court cases or student protest, and study findings indicated NIL would be

161
no exception (Banks vs. NCAA, 1992; Ferguson & Davis, 2019; McCormack vs. NCAA, 1988;
Neimeyer, 2015; Oliver vs. NCAA, 2009; Rhoden, 2006; Shaver, 2015). These individual and
collective actions have sought to challenge NCAA and their higher education institutions’
practices that exploit collegiate athletes. Findings from this study highlighted that collegiate
athletes were not only aware of the current inequities within college sports, but they also present
student-proposed reimaginations of what NIL could look like in ways that centered athlete skilldevelopment, maximizing post- college professional opportunities through NIL, as well as ways
institutions can leverage their resources to educate athletes on how they can most benefit from
NIL opportunities. These findings can add to the literature on collegiate athletes re-envisioning
what a more equitable college sports landscape could look like, and they also can contribute to
literature highlighting how athletes navigate institutions that were not established with their
flourishing in mind (Bank, 2020; Beamon, 2008; Beamon, 2014; Brown, 2014; Neimeyer, 2015).
Lastly, I argue the findings from this study could be useful for informing theory as well in how
collegiate athletes, specifically, and marginalized policy stakeholders generally are
conceptualized within research.
The findings from this study can contribute valuable insights to the Narrative Policy
Framework (NPF) and Principal Agent Theory (PAT). The first portion of the conceptual
framework for this study focused on critiquing policy narratives and their outcomes. This study
supports three of the five NPF core principles: (1) that policy realities are socially constructed
and value-laden; (2) that social constructions create different policy realities over time; and (3)
narratives operate at three interacting levels, micro, meso, and macro (Jones, 2018; McBeth &
Lybecker, 2018; Shanahan et al., 2018; Vesselkova, 2017). NPF would support the findings that
the social constructions of NIL policies will create different policy realities over time for

162
athletes, their higher educations and other institutional stakeholders. While previous NPF studies
have focused on the ways that policy narratives have been developed and operationalized,
relatively few have critiqued policy narratives and the role they play in policy outcomes,
especially regarding the creation of racially and gendered policy inequities (Siever & Jones,
2020). The findings from this study can further inform how policy narratives can influence and
perpetuate such inequities within the policy implementation process.
While the first section of the conceptual framework focused on critiquing policy
narratives and their influence on implementation and policy outcomes, the second portion
focused on critiquing institutional rationales shaping discourses around NIL policies and the
lived experiences of collegiate athletes. While the benefits of this study’s findings in relation to
literature on interest convergence were discussed earlier, the findings can also provide insights to
the literature surrounding principal agent theory (PAT) as well. The PAT focuses on the
relationship between principals and agents who are tasked to act on their behalf, by examining
the information asymmetries between the two parties, as well as moral hazards that prevent trust
between the two parties (Braun & Guston, 2003; Moe, 1984). The PAT highlights the
interdependence of members in hierarchical institutions and the findings from this study can
contribute to the PAT literature by highlighting the perspectives of marginalized populations
within hierarchical organizations such as athletic departments. Collegiate athletes’ perspectives
on NIL policies, its inequities, the navigational capital required to benefit from them, and their
perspectives on other agents they depend on to navigate the NIL landscape can provide valuable
insights on how marginalized principals can claim agency and act on their own in in hierarchical
organizations. Additionally, findings from this study can also inform how various classed,
racialized, and gendered inequities within organizations can influence moral hazards faced by

163
principals. These theoretical implications of the findings directly inform conclusions that can be
drawn from this study.
Implications for Policy, Practice, and Future Research
The findings of this study can provide valuable insights and implications for those
looking to advocate for collegiate athletes and populations marginalized through policy design
and implementation. The following is a collection of recommendations for policy, practice, and
research. The first section examines implications for policymakers seeking to advocate for
collegiate athletes and equitable NIL policies. The second section provides recommendations for
practice for those who are tasked with implementing NIL policies while considering student
well-being as well as institutional interests. Lastly, the section concludes with implications for
future research in higher education policy.
Implications for Policy
Policy implementation research has identified that there can often be disconnects between
those who are designing policies, those who are implementing them, and those who are impacted
by policy outcomes (McLaughlin, 1987; Weatherly and Lipsky, 1977). Additionally, there are
numerous actors also acting to influence policy design and outcomes in ways that benefit them.
Therefore, it is unsurprising that NIL policies, while providing some opportunities for collegiate
athletes to benefit, contain significant design flaws that ultimately undermine collegiate athlete
wellbeing.
Mandating Measurable NIL Education
As a first step, policymakers and advocates for collegiate athletes should pursue NIL
policies that mandate that institutions provide educational opportunities for athletes to learn the
NIL landscape and maximize their ability to benefit. Currently under NCAA policy, as well as

164
many states’ NIL policies, there are no mandates or incentives in place so that higher education
institutions must provide NIL education to their athletes. Many universities have faculty and
courses that specialize in many of the skills that collegiate athletes identified as being necessary
in order to successfully navigate the NIL landscape including entrepreneurship, marketing,
consumer behavior, brand building, and digital communication among other skills. Given the
discrepancies in navigational capital that students enter college with and potential for athlete
exploitation in the NIL process, failure to provide education for these students perpetuates
existing inequities within the NIL process. Additionally, higher education institutions and the
NCAA will inevitably benefit from the labor that athletes are investing in building their NIL
profiles through more attention to their sports, universities, and teams. Therefore, since they will
benefit from athlete labor, I argue that the infancy stages of the NIL era is the ideal time to
legislate that there is a responsibility for these institutions to ensure that collegiate athletes have
the tools they need to cultivate navigational capital and to flourish. Important in this process, is
that all collegiate athletes have opportunities to flourish.
Creating Opportunities for International Collegiate Athletes
Policymakers should also pursue policies that enable international collegiate athletes to
benefit from NIL opportunities. While current visa restrictions are in place, athletes could only
permissibly benefit from NIL opportunities if they perform them in their country of origin, which
privileges athletes who have the means to travel back and forth, or through passive NIL
activities, which are subject to interpretation. Advocates for collegiate athletes should pursue
clear guidelines for international students engaging in NIL through state and NCAA policy,
including classifications of permissible and impermissible activities, as well as resources for
international collegiate athletes as well. These athletes also contribute to the success of their

165
teams and viability of their programs and should be able to benefit accordingly. Additionally,
policymakers should also develop NIL policies that provide clear provisions and information for
transfer students. The addition of the transfer portal has enabled more movement among
collegiate athletes than ever before, and with this movement, athletes have to adjust to new state
NIL policies in addition to the complications that come with transferring to a new institution.
This could look like higher education institutions or the NCAA having a clear, online database
summarizing their state and institution NIL policies compared to other states or mandating that
an athletic department staff member be tasked with providing some form of orientation materials
for transfer students to help them make sense of their new state policy context as it may likely
influence how they approach their NIL activities. In addition to recommending the designing of
more equitable NIL policies, it is also necessary to consider how these policies are implemented
in practice.
Implications for Practice
While numerous recommendations could be made towards the NCAA on how to improve
NIL policy outcomes, including establishing a clear long-term policy, in this section I focus on
higher education institutions and corporate entities at large, as they have more face-to-face
interactions with collegiate athletes. Higher education institutional policy should focus on
centering student wellbeing over capitalistic interests. This may include reconsidering their
institutional policies that restrict athletes’ abilities to maximize their NIL potential including
policies that prevent students from wearing university paraphernalia in NIL activities. The
athlete’s affiliation with the university is one of their primary assets in presenting themselves as
marketable within their local contexts and policies that restrict athlete agency in leveraging their
university affiliation, while simultaneously being marketed in ways that only benefit the

166
institution reeks of hypocrisy and exploitation. Institutions could also advocate for the removal
of language in state policies that prevent athletes from leveraging their institutional affiliations.
Additionally, athletic departments could also contribute to creating a more equitable environment
for collegiate athletes.
Building NIL Infrastructures
One of the first steps athletic departments could make in making the NIL landscape more
equitable for collegiate athletes is by dedicating resources to staffing for NIL. By hiring NIL
staff, it provides a centralized resource for students to go ask questions, get connected to
resources that can help them navigate the NIL landscape since in most states departments cannot
negotiate deals for athletes. These staff members could also be responsible for developing NIL
curriculums and/or programming tailored to the institution’s local labor context to help athletes
identify ways they can benefit from NIL policies and develop resources to help them do so.
These staff members could also help by providing resources to coaching staffs who are already
overwhelmed the obligations of their daily responsibilities including recruiting. Another way
athletic departments could help create a more beneficial NIL environment and relieve stress from
athletes and coaches is by collaborating with their institutions to establish resources for
collegiate athletes. This could look like a database for classes or professors with expertise in
NIL-related skills, as well as opportunities to cultivate alumni networks, or collaborating with
existing campus resources such as the career center to develop similar resources that are more
compatible with athletes’ schedules. Lastly, there is also room for corporate entities to adjust
their practice so that they benefit the athlete.
Reassessing Corporate Partnerships towards Equity
The introduction of permissible athlete contact with corporate entities introduces a new

167
set of responsibilities for businesses seeking to partner with collegiate athletes for NIL
opportunities. Among steps that businesses can take to provide a more equitable NIL experience
for athletes include developing an awareness of inequities and biases that influence their
respective fields and business cultures. For example, taking care to acknowledge the ways that
consumer behavior can be influenced by beauty standard biases, anti-Blackness, and patriarchy
to name a few, especially regarding athletes it is essential to providing a safer environment for
collegiate athletes. Additionally, businesses should also create clear expectations around what
the athletes are required to provide in their deals, while accounting for the existing demands on
their schedule. Many athletes noted the ways that NIL activities provided additional burdens, and
businesses can do their part to make contractual obligations as accommodating as possible to
avoid unnecessary exploitation. Lastly, businesses should consider what it would look like to
create potential professional pathways for athletes who they partner with in NIL deals. This
could look like access to internship or shadowing opportunities, mentorship opportunities, or
potential for part-time or full-time employment where feasible. This way NIL activities can
mutually benefit both the business and the athlete in the short-term and long term. The findings
from the study and everchanging NIL landscape also create numerous opportunities for future
research in higher education policy.
Implications for Future Research
While this study provides contributions to the general field of policy implementation and
the studies of policy narratives, the rapid evolution of NIL policies, combined with the new
transition in NCAA leadership, this study’s findings and conclusions prove to be the most salient
for higher education policy studies, as well as studies on college sports. Findings from this study
indicate the importance of centering marginalized voices when aiming to conduct equitable

168
policy implementation, especially given that their voices are usually minimalized within policy
narratives. Regarding collegiate sports studies, previous studies have focused on how students
navigate and persist through the process of being college athletes while also navigating academic
and professional demands (Porto, 2016; Shaver, 2015; California Senate Bill 206).
This study expands upon this idea by adding NIL as another dimension that collegiate athletes
must navigate in order to succeed. Future research may also examine the influence of the transfer
portal on how collegiate athletes are perceiving their obligations to both their sports and their
studies. As stories continue to emerge on the interaction of NIL and transfer policies influencing
some students’ decisions to pursue NIL opportunities, it will be important for future research to
examine the influence of the transfer portal and if there are any inequities that are perpetuated
through which students feel they are able to benefit from it. Future research analyzing the
combined influence of athletic obligations, academic obligations, as well as NIL and transfer
portal opportunities will be well positioned to expand studies of collegiate athletes into this new
era of college sports.
Expanding Critical Policy Analyses of Collegiate Athletics
Several limitations of this study also provide avenues for future research as it relates to
policy narratives and equitable implementation of NIL policies. As aforementioned, a limitation
of this study’s research design is that it focuses on the experiences of collegiate athletes within
one “Power 5” athletic conference. Due to the variance in state and institutional NIL policies, it
would be beneficial for future research to examine how NIL policy narratives and experiences
are different across NCAA conferences and state contexts. Also, the current study only examined
the experiences of athletes at predominantly white universities, and future research would be
well served to consider the realities of NIL experiences at HBCUs and HSIs, as the difference in

169
institutional configurations may imply different support structures and opportunities. Future
research would also benefit from analyzing the perspectives of other NIL policy stakeholders to
get a more holistic picture of policy outcomes and unintended consequences.
Lastly, this study stands on the shoulders of critical policy analysis (CPA) in calling for
more emphasis to be placed on viewing policies in terms the outcomes they create, especially for
marginalized populations (Apple, 2019; Bensimon & Marshall, 2005; Diem et al., 2014; Fischer,
2003). While this study focused on the perspectives of collegiate athletes who are simultaneously
the most marginalized voices in NIL policy narratives and the most impacted by NIL policy
outcomes, there are a host of other stakeholders that future research on NIL policies could and
should focus on. Future research could examine the perspectives of administrators both within
athletic departments, as well as higher education institutions on their perspectives on NIL. They
could provide insights on the institutional tensions of having to design and implement NIL
policies, while also being mindful of student experiences. Additionally, future research should
also examine the perspectives of athlete’s families as well, as several athletes within the study
identified their families as resources for learning about collegiate athletes. Additionally,
examining family perspectives on NIL narratives may also be useful for understanding how
athletes come to develop their own insights on how they can benefit from the NIL landscape, and
what expectations they may have of their higher education institutions. Ultimately the findings
from this study and the future research it could inspire, speaks to the necessity of viewing
policies in terms of the real-life outcomes they produce, as opposed to the narratives that they so
easily enable to spread.

170
Conclusions
I argue that there are four significant conclusions that can be drawn from the findings of
this study on collegiate athlete’s perspectives of name, image and likeness (NIL) policies.
First, the largest hurdle collegiate athletes face in maneuvering through the NIL
landscape is navigational capital. Students enter college with varying experiences and levels of
cultural capital (Yosso, 2000) that enable them to navigate NIL opportunities. These variations in
navigational capital are reflective of inequities within the college sports landscape which
function as a microcosm of general inequities within society. These inequities inform the ways
that NIL can be an exhaustive endeavor for collegiate athletes.
Secondly, NIL endeavors were an additional source of labor for collegiate athletes. In
addition to their already dense academic and athletic schedules, NIL also introduces content
creation and professional activities into their obligations. Inequities within college sports also
influenced the extent to which students had to exert labor to participate in NIL activities.
Women’s athletes, athletes in Olympic-sports, students from lower socioeconomic status
backgrounds, and athletes who did not have substantial social media followings reported having
to do additional labor to secure NIL opportunities. Many of these students cited feeling their
institutions invested in them less than their counterparts in men’s, revenue-generating sports
which were often discussed in policy narratives regarding NIL.
Thirdly, policy narratives surrounding NIL policies are influential in how collegiate
athletes and various other stakeholders understand NIL and form their opinions. Athletes noted
primarily receiving their information on NIL policies from social media, teammates, families,
and their institutions. Of these discourse sources, social media was the largest influencer for how
NIL policies were understood. Many students spoke to the ways prevailing policy narratives

171
perpetuated an incomplete vision of how the NIL landscape actually functions for them.
Clarifying some of these misconceptions was a major point of emphasis for students and
highlights the need to create space for athlete voice in these discourses, as well as leveraging
these marginalized voices to inform policy advocacy and development.
Lastly, collegiate athletes are very aware of how they, and stakeholders around them
stand to benefit from their participation in NIL activities. Athletes spoke to the ways their
conferences, higher education institutions, corporate partners, and the NCAA at large stand to
benefit from their labor in NIL. Additionally, these students are thinking of ways to advocate for
a more inclusive version of NIL that accounts for the exclusion of international students (NCAA,
2020; Peck & Oliver, 2022; Sethi et al., 2022), as well as the marginalization of athletes in
Olympic sports, and women’s sports. Their awareness should be consulted for developing future
NIL programming and policies.
Closing
This dissertation offered a thorough review of relevant literature, analyzed theoretical and
conceptual frameworks designed to account for the lived policy realities of marginalized
populations and rationales for said marginalization, while also discussing the lived experiences
of collegiate athletes navigating an emerging policy field with implications for both higher
education and public policy. The emergence of NIL policies in collegiate sports after over a
hundred years of blatant collegiate athlete exploitation sounded a clear alarm that change was
coming to the college sports landscape. However, these policy changes have created different
lived realities for a variety of students whom these policies were intended to help without
accounting for differences in navigational capital or societal inequities that make succeeding in
the NIL landscape more difficult for certain athletes. .

172
Critiquing policy narratives and their outcomes allow for a more nuanced, equity-oriented
way of viewing policies, while also providing a canvas on which to design more complex, multifaceted policy solutions. This empirical study of name, image, and likeness policies sought to
center the voices of the college athletes who were most impacted by these policies to both clarify
misconceptions within the policy narratives, while also enabling them to design solutions to
improve policies in ways that render that intentionally prioritize them, instead of the institutions
who stand to benefit the most.
I began this dissertation with a quote from Malcolm X on the illusion of progress, derived
from the inability to fully acknowledge, address, and heal wounds perpetuated by historical
injustices. As NIL policies continue to evolve, it will be important for future researchers to
continue to center the voices and experiences of collegiate athletes so that NIL does not
perpetuate the exploitation, inequity, and thoughtlessly excessive commercialism associated with
the pre-NIL NCAA. Failure to do this would be the equivalent of pulling the knife of
exploitation six inches out of the backs of college athletes and calling NIL progress. This ought
not be.

173
References
Apple, M. W. (2019). On Doing Critical Policy Analysis. Educational Policy, 33(1), 276–287.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807307
Armstrong, K. L., & Jennings, M. A. (2018). Race, sport, and sociocognitive “place” in higher
education: Black male student-athletes as critical theorists. Journal of Black
Studies, 49(4), 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934718760721
Associated Press. (2019). Prep basketball takes backseat to AAU in recruiting game. AP.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2019/11/11/prep-basketball-takesbackseat-to-aau-in-recruiting-game/40588429/
Aydarova, E. (2020). Jokers’ pursuit of truth: Critical policy analysis in the age of spectacle and
post-truth politics. Critical Studies in Education, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1831566
Ball, S. J. (2006). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Ball.
Routledge.
Bank, S. (2020). The Olympic-sized loophole in California’s “Fair Pay to Play Act.” Columbia
Law Review, 120(4), 109–117.
Banks v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 746 F. Supp. 850 (N.D. Ind. 1990).
Beamon, K. (2008). Used Goods”: Former African American College Student-Athletes’
Perception of Exploitation by Division I Universities. The Journal of Negro
Education, 77(4), 352–364.
Beamon, K. (2014). Racism and stereotyping on campus: Experiences of African American male
student-athletes. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(2), 121.
https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.83.2.0121
Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard
Law Review, 93(3), 518. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546
Bell, D. A. (2000). Brown v. Board of Education: Forty-five years after the fact. Ohio Northern
University Law Review, 26(2), 171–182.
Benford, R. D. (2007). The college sports reform movement: Reframing the “edutainment”
industry. The Sociological Quarterly, 48(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-
8525.2007.00068.x
Bensimon, E. M., & Marshall, C. (2003). Like it or not: Feminist critical policy analysis
matters. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(3), 337–349.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2003.0021

174
Bensimon, E. M. & Marshall, C. (2005). Policy analysis for postsecondary education: Feminist
and critical perspectives. In C. Marshall (Ed.), Feminist Critical Policy Analysis II (0 ed.,
pp. 12–31). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203978801-8
Berri, D. (2016). Paying NCAA Athletes. Marquette Sports Law Review, 26(2), 479–492.
Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data
and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13(1), 68–75.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081254
Brassil, G. R. (2020, November 13). Ivy league cancels winter sports and stalls spring sports
over coronavirus. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/sports/ivy-league-winter-spring-sportscoronavirus.html
Braun, D., & Guston, D. H. (2003). Principal-agent theory and research policy: An
introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302–308.
https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780290
Brewer, C. A. (2014). Historicizing in critical policy analysis: The production of cultural
histories and microhistories. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 27(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.759297
Brömdal, A., Olive, R., & Walker, B. (2020). Questioning representations of athletes with
elevated testosterone levels in elite women’s sports: A critical policy
analysis. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 12(4), 699–715.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2020.1834432
Brown, T. (2014). College athletics internships: The case for academic credit in college
athletics. American University Law Review, 63(6), 1855–1900.
Bruening, J. E., Armstrong, K. L., & Pastore, D. L. (2005). Listening to the voices: The
experiences of african american female student athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 76(1), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2005.10599264
Buckner, C. (2021). Perspective | Brands are taking notice of female college athletes. Now let’s
move beyond their sex appeal. Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/08/22/nil-deals-female-college-athletes/
Bunner, B. (2021). NIL Bills—An Examination of the Implications of Compensating College
Athletes Under Name, Image, and Likeness Legislation. Pittsburgh Tax Review, 18(2),
355–373.

175
Castagno, A. E., & Lee, S. J. (2007). Native mascots and ethnic fraud in higher education: Using
tribal critical race theory and the interest convergence principle as an analytic tool. Equity
& Excellence in Education, 40(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680601057288
Chang, K. T., & Koebele, E. A. (2020). What drives coalitions’ narrative strategy? Exploring
policy narratives around school choice. Politics & Policy, 48(4), 618–657.
https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12367
Chase, M. M., Dowd, A. C., Pazich, L. B., & Bensimon, E. M. (2014). Transfer equity for
“minoritized” students: A critical policy analysis of seven states. Educational
Policy, 28(5), 669–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812468227
Collegiate athletics: Student athlete compensation and representation., SB-206. Retrieved
December 16, 2021, from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206
Comeaux, E. (2018). Stereotypes, control, hyper-surveillance, and disposability of NCAA
Division I Black male athletes. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(163), 33–42.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20268
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches (3rd ed). SAGE Publications.
Cronk, E. (2013). Unlawful encroachment: Why the NCAA must compensate student-athletes
for the use their names, images, and likenesses. University of La Verne Law
Review, 34(2), 135–165.
Custis, T., Hoben, M., & Larsen, P. (2019). Big money, corruption, and black markets: A closer
look at the legal and economic effects of amateurism in division I NCAA college
athletics. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 399–415.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-09-2018-0070
Curtin, M., & Fossey, E. (2007) “Appraising the Trustworthiness of Qualitative Studies:
Guidelines for Occupational Therapists.” Australian Occupational Therapy Journal,
54(2)pp. 88–94. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00661.x.
Dalton, M. (2016). Shoe Money, AAU Basketball, and the Effects on College Basketball
Recruiting. Mississippi Sports Law Review, 6(1), 108–114.
David R. Mccormack, et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant-appellee, 845 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1988).
Demas, L. (2010). Integrating the gridiron: Black civil rights and American college football.
Rutgers University Press.

176
Diem, S., Young, M. D., & Sampson, C. (2019). Where critical policy meets the politics of
education: An introduction. Educational Policy, 33(1), 3–15.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807317
Diem, S., Young, M. D., Welton, A. D., Mansfield, K. C., & Lee, P.-L. (2014). The intellectual
landscape of critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 27(9), 1068–1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.916007
Donnor, J. K. (2005). Towards an interest‐convergence in the education of African‐American
football student athletes in major college sports. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 45–
67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000340999
Driver, J. (2011). Rethinking the interest-convergence thesis. Northwestern University Law
Review, 105(1), 149–198.
Epstein, I., Stevens, B., McKeever, P., & Baruchel, S. (2006). Photo elicitation interview (Pei):
Using photos to elicit children’s perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 5(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500301
Ertas, N. (2015). Policy narratives and public opinion concerning charter schools: Policy
narratives and public opinion. Politics & Policy, 43(3), 426–451.
https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12120
Ferguson, T. L., & Davis, C. H. (2019). Labor, resources, and interest convergence in the
organized resistance of Black male student-athletes. In Student activism, politics, and
campus climate in higher education (pp. 77-96). Routledge.
Fernández, E., LeChasseur, K., & Donaldson, M. L. (2018). Responses to including parents in
teacher evaluation policy: A critical policy analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 33(3),
398–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1370135
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/019924264X.001.0001
Fitt, V. (2009). The NCAA’s Lost Cause and the Legal Ease of Redefining Amateurism. Duke
Law Journal, 59(3), 555–593.
Fort, R., & Winfree, J. (2016). 15 sports myths and why they’re wrong. Stanford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804790536
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in. In The New institutionalism in
organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10991209
Garthwaite, C., Notowidigdo, M., Ozminkowski, N. F., & Keener, J. (2020). Who Profits from
Amateurism? Rent-Sharing in Modern College Sports [Working Paper: National Bureau
of Economic Research].

177
Gayles, J. G., Comeaux, E., Ofoegbu, E., & Grummert, S. (2018). Neoliberal capitalism and
racism in college athletics: Critical approaches for supporting student-athletes: neoliberal
capitalism and racism in college athletics. New Directions for Student
Services, 2018(163), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20266
Gilbert, D. A. (2016). Not (Just) about the money: Contextualizing the labor activism of college
football players. American Studies, 55(3), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1353/ams.2016.0103
Gottlieb, M., Bertone Oehninger, E., & Arnold, G. (2018). “No fracking way” vs. “Drill baby
drill”: A restructuring of who is pitted against whom in the narrative policy framework:
“no fracking way” vs. “Drill baby drill.” Policy Studies Journal, 46(4), 798–827.
https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12291
Gross, T. (2017, May 3). A “forgotten history” of how the U. S. Government segregated
America. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-howthe-u-s-government-segregated-america
Gunn, A. (2015). The role of political and policy studies in higher education policy research. In
J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and Method in Higher Education Research (Vol.
1, pp. 27–47). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-
375220150000001002
Gustin, M. J. (2015). The O’Bannon court got it wrong: The case against paying NCAA studentathletes. Western State University Law Review, 42(2), 137–158.
Harper, S. R. (2009). Race, interest convergence, and transfer outcomes for black male student
athletes. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2009(147), 29–37.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.375
Harper, S. R. (2018). Black male student-athletes and racial inequities in NCAA Division I
college sports: 2018 edition. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Race and
Equity Center.
Harper, S. R., & Donnor, J. K. (2017). Scandals in college sports. Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.
Harper, S. R., Patton, L. D., & Wooden, O. S. (2009). Access and equity for african american
students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. The
Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 389–414.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779022
Harris, M. (2001). The rise of anthropological theory: A history of theories of culture (Updated
ed). AltaMira Press.
Hennessey v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 564 F.2d 1136, 76-3798 (5th Cir. 1977).

178
Henry, S. G., & Fetters, M. D. (2012). Video elicitation interviews: A qualitative research
method for investigating physician-patient interactions. The Annals of Family
Medicine, 10(2), 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1339
Hextrum, K. (2018). The hidden curriculum of college athletic recruitment. Harvard Educational
Review, 88(3), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-88.3.355
Hextrum, K. (2020a). Amateurism revisited: How U.S. college athletic recruitment favors
middle-class athletes. Sport, Education and Society, 25(1), 111–123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2018.1547962
Hextrum, K. (2020b). Bigger, faster, stronger: How racist and sexist ideologies persist in college
sports. Gender and Education, 32(8), 1053–1071.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2019.1632418
Hextrum, K. (2020c). Segregation, innocence, and protection: The institutional conditions that
maintain whiteness in college sports. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(4),
384–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140
Hodge, S. R., Harrison, L., Burden, J. W., & Dixson, A. D. (2008). Brown in black and white—
then and now: A question of educating or sporting African American males in
America. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(7), 928–952.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207311998
Hollander, J. A. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 33(5), 602–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241604266988
H.R.3545—Collegiate Student Athlete Protection Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/113thcongress/house-bill/3545/titles?r=89&s=1
Ingemi, M. (2023). For women in NIL, beauty standards and social-media noise can take a toll.
San Francisco Chronicle. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/college/article/nilwomen-athlete-endorsements-17795457.php
Jones, M. D. (2018). Advancing the narrative policy framework? The musings of a potentially
unreliable narrator: advancing the narrative policy framework? Policy Studies
Journal, 46(4), 724–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12296
Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be
wrong? : jones/mcbeth: a narrative policy framework. Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329–
353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00364.x
Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2020). Narrative in the time of trump: Is the narrative policy
framework good enough to be relevant? Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(2), 91–110.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1750211

179
Jones, M. D., & Radaelli, C. M. (2015). The narrative policy framework: Child or
monster? Critical Policy Studies, 9(3), 339–355.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2015.1053959
Kaburakis, A., Pierce, D. A., Cianfrone, B. A., & Paule, A. L. (2012). Is it still “in the game”, or
has amateurism left the building? Ncaa student-athletes’ perceptions of commercial
activity and sports video games. Journal of Sport Management, 26(4), 295–308.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.26.4.295
Kennedy-Lewis, B. L. (2014). Using critical policy analysis to examine competing discourses in
zero tolerance legislation: Do we really want to leave no child behind? Journal of
Education Policy, 29(2), 165–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.800911
Kissika-Schulze, K., & Epstein, A. (2014). “Show me the money!” Analyzing the potential state
tax implications of paying student-athletes. Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law
Journal, 14(1), 13–49.
Kitko, N. (2018). The Law May Cave, but Economics Will Not: The Road to Paying Student
Athletes is Longer than We Think. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 85(1), 319–345.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research (4th ed). SAGE.
Law v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 5 F. Supp. 2d 921 (D. Kan. 1998).
Levačić, R. (2009). Teacher incentives and performance: An application of principal–agent
theory. Oxford Development Studies, 37(1), 33–46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13600810802660844
Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Sage Publications.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Leong, N. (2013). Racial Capitalism. Harvard Law Review, 126(8), 2152–2226.
LeRoy, M. H. (2022, February 16). With system out of balance, it’s time to revisit college NIL
laws. Sportico.Com. https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/state-nillaws-revision-1234661547/
Lugg, C. A., & Murphy, J. P. (2014). Thinking whimsically: Queering the study of educational
policy-making and politics. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 27(9), 1183–1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.916009
McBeth, M. K., & Lybecker, D. L. (2018). The narrative policy framework, agendas, and
sanctuary cities: The construction of a public problem: the narrative policy framework,

180
agendas, and sanctuary cities. Policy Studies Journal, 46(4), 868–893.
https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12274
McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Arnell, R. J., & Hathaway, P. L. (2007). The intersection of
narrative policy analysis and policy change theory. Policy Studies Journal, 35(1), 87–
108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00208.x
McCormick, A., & McCormick, R. (2008). The emperor’s new clothes: Lifting the NCAA’s veil
of amateurism. San Diego Law Review, 45(2), 495–545.
McCullough, A., & Subketkaew, A. T. (2014). Ancient greek ‘amateurism’, the NCAA and the
courts. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 31(9), 1033–1046.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2013.857658
McDavis, C. (2018). The value of amateurism. Marquette Sports Law Review, 29(1), 275–341.
Melamed, J. (2015). Racial capitalism. Critical Ethnic Studies, 1(1), 76.
https://doi.org/10.5749/jcritethnstud.1.1.0076
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Miller, A. W. (2011). NCAA Division I athletics: Amateurism and exploitation. The Sport
Journal, 14(1), 251–258.
Miller, G. J. (2005). The political evolution of principal-agent models. Annual Review of
Political Science, 8(1), 203–225.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104840
Mintrom, M., Rublee, M. R., Bonotti, M., & Zech, S. T. (2021). Policy narratives, localisation,
and public justification: Responses to COVID-19. Journal of European Public
Policy, 28(8), 1219–1237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1942154
Mir, A., & Toor, S. (2021). Racial capitalism and student debt in the U.S. Organization.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508421995762
Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political
Science, 28(4), 739. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110997
Mondello, M., Piquero, A. R., Piquero, N. L., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2013). Public perceptions
on paying student athletes. Sport in Society, 16(1), 106–119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2012.690408
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Moustakas, C. E. (2009). Phenomenological research methods (Nachdr.). Sage.

181
Moyer, A. (2015). Throwing out the playbook: Replacing the NCAA’s anticompetitive
amateurism regime with the Olympic model. The George Washington Law Review, 83(2),
761–828.
Murty, K. S., & Roebuck, J. B. (2015). Deviant exploitation of black male student athletes on
white campuses. Deviant Behavior, 36(6), 429–440.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.935691
Mustaffa, J. B., & Dawson, C. (2021). Racial capitalism and the black student loan debt
crisis. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 123(6), 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812112300601
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2021). 2021-22 NCAA Division I Manual. National
Collegiate Athletic Association. https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/reports/getReport/90008
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston , (594 U.S).
Ncaa.org (2021, June 30). https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaaadopts-interim-name- image-and-likeness-policy
NCAA.com. (2020, March 17). NCAA cancels men’s and women’s basketball championships
due to coronavirus concerns | NCAA.com. https://www.ncaa.com/live-updates/basketballmen/d1/ncaa-cancels-mens-and-womens-basketball-championships-due
NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984).
NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988).
Neimeyer, J. (2015). The end of an era: The mounting challenges to the NCAA’s model of
amateurism. Pepperdine Law Review, 42(4), 883–932.
New York Times. (1936, September 3). Game Broadcasts Are Sold by Yale to an
Advertiser. New York Times.
http://query.nytimes.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/mem/archive/pdf?res=F50812F73C59167B9
3C1A91782D85F428385F9
Nocera, J., & Strauss, B. (2018). Indentured: The battle to end the exploitation of college
athletes. Penguin Publishing Group.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to
meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1),
160940691773384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
O’Bannon v. NCAA, No. 14-16601 (9th Cir. 2015).

182
O’Donovan, K. T. (2018). Does the narrative policy framework apply to local policy
issues? Politics & Policy, 46(4), 532–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12265
Oliver v. NCAA, 920 N.E.2d 203, (2009).
O’Toole, K. M. (2013). John L. Griffith and the Commercialization of College Sports on Radio
in the 1930s. Journal of Sport History, 40(2), 241–257.
https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/525097
Overly, K. B. (2005). The exploitation of African-American men in college athletic
programs. Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, 5(1), 31–62.
Oxford Dictionaries. (2021). Amateurism noun—Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage
notes https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/amateurism
Patton, M. Q., & Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed). Sage
Publications.
Peach, J. (2007). College athletics, universities, and the NCAA. The Social Science
Journal, 44(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2006.12.002
Peck, A.L., & Oliver, B.J. (2022) Foreign student-athletes and name, image, likeness. (n.d.). The
National Law Review. Retrieved December, 16, 2022, from
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/foreign-student-athletes-and-name-image-likeness
Porto, B. (2016). Neither employees nor indentured servants: A new amateurism for a
millennium in college sports. Marquette Sports Law Review, 26(2), 301–330.
Posselt, J., Porter, K. B., & Kamimura, A. (2018). Organizational pathways toward gender equity
in doctoral education: Chemistry and civil engineering compared. American Journal of
Education, 124(4), 383–410. https://doi.org/10.1086/698457
Postsecondary Education: Student Athlete Bill of Rights, SB-1525. (2012).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1525
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). Institutions, Institutional effects, and institutionalism.
In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 143–163). University of
Chicago Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10991209
Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–
53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418822335
Rhoden, W. C. (2007). $40 million slaves: The rise, fall, and redemption of the black athlete (1st
pbk. ed). Three Rivers Press.

183
Roebuck, J., Murty, K., & McCamey, J. (2014). Race and Class Exploitation: A Study of Black
Male Student Athletes (BSAS) on White Campuses. Race, Gender and Class (Towson,
Md.), 21(3), 156–173.
Robinson, C. J. (2000). Black marxism: The making of the Black radical tradition. University of
North Carolina Press.
Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated
America (First edition). Liveright Publishing Corporation, a division of W. W. Norton &
Company.
Sack, A. L. (1987). College sport and the student—Athlete. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, 11(1–2), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/019372358701100103
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and
analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23(3), 246–
255. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200006)23:3<246::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-H
Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2015). The case for paying college athletes. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.1.115
Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2018). The role of broadcasting in national collegiate
athletic association sports. Review of Industrial Organization, 52(2), 305–321.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-017-9593-9
Saul, S., & Hubler, S. (2021, February 9). Colleges vowed a safer spring. Then students, and
variants, arrived. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/us/colleges-covid.html
Savage, H. J., Smiley, D. F., McGovern, J. T., & Bentley, H. W. (1929). American college
athletics. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/101954991
Scott, L. M. (2017). The NCAA’s losing battle: What happens when paying student-athletes
meets Title IX? Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 41(2), 285–305.
Sethi, S., Lever, K., Hextrum, K. (2022). US Citizenship Supremacy: How immigration laws and
NCAA policies exclude International College Athletes from monetizing their Name,
Image, and Likeness [In press]. Sports Innovation Journal.
Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2018). How to conduct a narrative policy
framework study. The Social Science Journal, 55(3), 332–345.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.12.002

184
Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., McBeth, M. K., & Lane, R. R. (2013). An angel on the wind:
How heroic policy narratives shape policy realities: narrative policy framework. Policy
Studies Journal, 41(3), 453–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12025
Shaver, S. (2015). Unnecessary roughness: Why the NCAA’s heavy-handed amateurism rules
violate the Sherman Antitrust Ac. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 48,
347–370.
Shaw, D. (2013). A new look at an old research method: Photo-elicitation. TESOL Journal, 4(4),
785–799. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.108
Sheetz, A. (2016). NOTE: Student-Athletes vs. NCAA: Preserving Amateurism in College
Sports Amidst the Fight for Player Compensation. Brooklyn Law Review, 81(865).
https://advance-lexis-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/api/document?collection=analyticalmaterials&id=urn:contentItem:5JHY-4770-00CV-M169-00000-00&context=1516831.
Sievers, T., & Jones, M. D. (2020). Can power be made an empirically viable concept in policy
process theory? Exploring the power potential of the Narrative Policy
Framework. International Review of Public Policy, 2(1), 90–114.
https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.942
Smith, R. A. (2011). Pay for play: A history of big-time college athletic reform. University of
Illinois Press.
Smith, R. K. (2000). A brief history of the national collegiate athletic association’s role in
regulating intercollegiate athletics. Marquette Sports Law Review, 11(1), 9–22.
Souto-Manning, M. (2022). On the exploitation of cooperating teachers of color: Clinical
practice as racial capitalism. Teaching and Teacher Education, 112, 103564.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103564
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications.
Stake, R.E. (2005) Qualitative Case Studies. In: Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., Eds., The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research, 3rd Edition, Sage Publications, London, 443-466.
Subtirelu, N. C., Borowczyk, M., Thorson Hernández, R., & Venezia, F. (2019).
Recognizing whose bilingualism? A critical policy analysis of the seal of biliteracy. The
Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12556
Sullivan, B. (2021, March 20). Under fire, the ncaa apologizes and unveils new weight room for
women’s tournament. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/20/979596524/under-fire-thencaa-apologizes-and-unveils-new-weight-room-for-womens-tournament
Tepen, L. (2021). Pay to Play: Looking Beyond Direct Compensation and Towards Paying
College Athletes for Themselves. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 65,
213–246.

185
Theune, F. (2019). Brown, Title IX and the impact of race and sex segregation on sports
participation opportunities for Black females. Sociology Compass, 13(3), e12661.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12661
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A
new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
Title IX of The Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 ET SEQ.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2021). Education in a Pandemic: The
Disparate Impacts of COVID-19 on America’s Students.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf
Van Rheenen, D. (2013). Exploitation in college sports: Race, revenue, and educational
reward. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48(5), 550–571.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690212450218
Vanhuysse, P., & Sulitzeanu‐Kenan, R. (2009). Teacher’s PAT? Multiple‐role principal–agent
theory, education politics, and bureaucrat power. Critical Studies in Education, 50(2),
129–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480802056502
Veselková, M. (2017). Narrative Policy Framework: Narratives as heuristics in the policy
process. Human Affairs, 27(2), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2017-0016
Wallsten, K., Nteta, T. M., McCarthy, L. A., & Tarsi, M. R. (2017). Prejudice or principled
conservatism? Racial resentment and white opinion toward paying college
athletes. Political Research Quarterly, 70(1), 209–222.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912916685186
Ward, R. E. (2004). Are doors being opened for the “ladies’’ of college sports? A covariance
analysis. Sex Roles, 51(11–12), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-004-0719-9
Welton, A., & Mansfield, K. C. (2020). More than just an academic exercise: Conjoining critical
policy analysis and community-engaged research as an embodiment of political
action. Educational Studies, 56(6), 619–635.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2020.1837834
Wertheimer, A. (1996). Exploitation. Princeton University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691214511
Wingfield, A. H., & Chavez, K. (2020). Getting in, getting hired, getting sideways looks:
Organizational hierarchy and perceptions of racial discrimination. American Sociological
Review, 85(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419894335

186
Withycombe, J. L. (2011). Intersecting selves: African american female athletes’ experiences of
sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 28(4), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.28.4.478
Young, J. (2021). With $1 billion on the line, March Madness is ready for its comeback. CNBC.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/with-1-billion-on-the-line-march-madness-is-readyfor-its-comeback.html
Young, K. (2013). Deconstructing the facade of amateurism: Antitrust and intellectual property
arguments in favor of compensating athletes. Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law
Journal, 12(2), 338–354.

187
Appendices
Appendix A: Instrumental Case Study Interview Protocol (Semi-Structured)
Isaiah Simmons
April 12, 2022
But Who Really Wins? College Athletes’ Analysis of Name, Image, and Likeness Policy
Narratives”
Introduction
Good afternoon, my name is Isaiah Simmons. I am a doctoral student at USC. Thank you for
agreeing to participate in this focus group for my dissertation. The goal of this study is to learn
more about narratives around name, image, and likeness policies, and specifically how college
athletes perceive them. I especially want to thank you for your time given the chaotic times that
we are in, and your busy schedules. Your expertise is immensely valued. Before we get started, I
want to share some general guidelines for the focus groups.
• Your participation is voluntary; you can choose not to answer any questions you do not
want to answer. The focus group will take between 60-90 mins
• This interview will be audio recorded for transcription purposes only and a copy of the
transcript will be sent to you for your approval before any publication takes place. Prior
to beginning I want to ask if I have your consent to record this interview
• I will ask follow-up questions on some items to further understand your thoughts. There
are no right or wrong answers to these questions.
You should have received a copy of the informed consent and intake questionnaire form
previously via email, however if you have not, please take time to complete those now. As the
intake form indicates, you may withdraw from this study at any time.

188
Before we begin, do you have any questions?
Focus Group Questions
1. Over the past year a lot has been made of the NIL policies both in specific states like CA,
and the NCAA’s interim policy. What are your thoughts on these NIL policies?
2. How do these policies change your life as a college athlete in any way? If so, how?
3. How will these policies impact fairness in college sports?
Video Solicitation Activity
We’ll now take some time to watch a brief video where a debate on NIL policies are being
discussed. Afterwards there will be some debrief questions.
1. Where have you heard these NIL policies being discussed by others?
a. How do you feel about these perspectives?
2. What do you feel others are missing when they discuss NIL policies and how they impact
you?
3. How do you feel your class background informs how you view these compensation
policies?
4. Are there any other parts of your identity that you feel will influence how you or other
athletes will be able to benefit from NIL policies?
Learning Activity
Prompt: NCAA has given you the opportunity to design their long-term NIL solution. Given $1
million (distribute percentage of NIL funds between yourself, school, conference, NCAA) no
more than 60% to yourself: if you could submit a plan to your AD for how to distribute NIL
revenues what would it look like?
1. Activity questions:
a. Given $1 million (distribute percentage of NIL income between yourself, school,
conference, NCAA) no more than 0% to yourself: if you could submit a plan to
your AD for how to distribute NIL funds what would it look like?
b. What factors influenced your decision in how to distribute these funds?
c. What barriers do you feel would prevent a plan like this from being put in place?
Final Question:
1. How would you want to see NIL policies being implemented so that you the athlete can
benefit from it?

189
Appendix B: Study Participant Consent Form for Research
University of Southern California
USC Race and Equity Center
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH Suite 1103
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
College Athletes’ Analyses of NIL Policy Narratives Focus Group
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Isaiah Simmons, a doctoral
candidate at the University of Southern California (USC). You were chosen to participate
because you are a collegiate athlete at a “Power 5” institution. Your participation is voluntary.
You should read the information below and ask questions about anything you do not understand
before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent
form. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form and given a copy.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
You are currently being asked to participate in a dissertation study on collegiate athletes’
perspectives on name, image, and likeness (NIL) policies. Currently, I am aiming to understand
how athletes are navigating the NIL landscapes and develop ways that their institutions can
support them.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to attend a focus group asking
questions about what you have heard about NIL policies, your thoughts on them, and factors
shaping your perspectives. During the focus group, you will be shown a fifteen-minute video
clip of a debate from a prominent news show segment discussing the impact of NIL policies on
collegiate athletes at large. This focus group will be conducted online via the Zoom platform and
will take 60-90 minutes. There are questions in the focus group about your perspectives on the
ways NIL is discussed in the media, as well as what suggestions you would have for your

190
institution as it looks to implement NIL policies. The focus groups will be recorded for
transcription and analysis purposes.
Feel free to be as candid as possible during the focus group. I will ask some follow-up questions
on the conversation during the focus group to better understand your answers. Please let me
know if a question doesn’t make sense or if you feel you have a better way of asking the
question.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
It is important to understand that taking part in this study is entirely voluntary. Possible risks and
discomforts you could experience during this study include that some questions may be
upsetting to some people, but you can choose to not respond to any question asked during the
focus group. There also is a small risk that people who are not connected with this study will
learn your identity or your personal information. There may be other risks that are not known at
this time.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There are no direct benefits to you from taking part in this study. However, you will be able to
provide your perspectives on NIL policies and your participation may help us learn more about
their impacts.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no financial compensation for participation in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
I will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we are
required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members of
the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

191
The data from this study will be kept indefinitely and any data that include your identity will be
destroyed upon completion of data analysis and member checking process. Your identity will not
be revealed in any description or publications of this research.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary and you may discontinue participation without penalty Your
refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise
entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time up until the publication of the dissertation.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Isaiah Simmons
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
Email: isaiahsi@usc.edu
Or you may contact the Faculty Advisor, Shaun Harper, at sharper@usc.edu.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #325, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (323) 442-0114 or
irb@usc.edu
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

192
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.
Name of Participant
Signature of Participant Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.
Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The problem this study addresses is the prevalence of uncritical policy narratives, which can influence policy implementation in inequitable ways. Within the structure of policy narratives, there are several common characteristics including: policy contexts, plots, characters, solutions, and generalizability (Shanahan et al., 2011; Shanahan et al., 2013). These narratives are constructed towards a desired policy outcome and are useful because of their ability to simplify complex information such as policy realities. Given the power and influence of narratives, how they are constructed, who they are constructed by, and towards what ends they are constructed are critical questions to ask, especially given the oppressive nature of the American political system. Highlighting the NCAA’s name, image and likeness (NIL) policies, the study gleaned from the organizational and cultural history of collegiate athletics to highlight the ways that policy narratives have influenced implementation within higher education and beyond, often in ways that are detrimental to minoritized stakeholders. As will be discussed in chapter two, the NCAA has a long history of exploiting collegiate athletes, often using the law to protect them and their organizational practices. This study takes a critical perspective of NIL policies and their influence on the collegiate athletics landscape. This study centered the voices of collegiate athletes and their perspectives on NIL policy narratives, allowing for new narratives to develop.
This dissertation utilized qualitative research methods to conduct an instrumental case study using NIL policies within one NCAA “Power 5” conference as a space to interrogate collegiate athletes’ perspectives on NIL policy narratives and policies generally. Forty current collegiate athletes across 10 different sports participated in focus group interviews for this study. Findings indicated that for collegiate athletes, NIL policies created a vast amount of lived experiences when accounting for the navigational capital required to pursue NIL opportunities, the benefits and inequities within NIL policies, and the role institutions play in helping students achieve their goals. Implications and recommendations for policy, future research, and practice to improve NIL experiences for collegiate athletes and to pursue equitable education policy implementation generally are discussed in the final chapter.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) legislation on the decision-making process regarding school attendance for student-athletes

PDF

Culture, politics, and policy implementation: how practitioners interpret and implement the transfer policy in a technical college environment

PDF

Tough conversations and missed opportunities: implementing district policies for racial equity

PDF

State policy as an opportunity to address Latinx transfer inequity in community college

PDF

Examining the sociopolitical and racial beliefs of United States history teachers

PDF

Women and leadership: the impact of collegiate athletics on leader identity development and attainment of leadership positions

PDF

AB 705: the equity policy – race and power in the implementation of a developmental education reform

PDF

No bodies wasted: undocumented community college student experiences of hope and the chameleon phenomenon

PDF

#RepresentationMatters: constructing Black academic identities through popular and social media

PDF

Teacher perceptions of evaluation policy in Hawaii

PDF

A call for transparency and accountability: continuous improvement in state education agency policy implementation

PDF

Analysis of faculty professional identity upon culturally responsive practices and pursuit of critical thinking

PDF

Navigating the struggle: neoliberal meritocracy, Latinx charter school graduates, and the college transition

PDF

Participation in higher education diversity, equity, and inclusion work: a relational intersectionality of organizations analysis

PDF

Broken windows on campus: Policing and racism in higher education

PDF

Into the night: A critical race feminist approach for understanding the off-campus experiences of Black undergraduate women in nightclubs

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

African American males’ anti-deficit achievement narratives of their college preparation experiences navigating through Los Angeles County K-12 public education system into college

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

The sport of learning: the effect of college athletes' perception of identity on approach to learning

Asset Metadata

Creator Simmons, Isaiah (author)

Core Title But who really wins?: College athletes' analysis of name, image, and likeness policy narratives

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Urban Education Policy

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 05/15/2023

Defense Date 04/07/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag and likeness,College athletes,critical policy analysis,image,name,NIL,OAI-PMH Harvest,policy narratives

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Harper, Shaun (committee chair), Davis, Kendrick (committee member), Donnor, Jamel (committee member)

Creator Email isaiah.jamal@yahoo.com,isaiahsi@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113127155

Unique identifier UC113127155

Identifier etd-SimmonsIsa-11851.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-SimmonsIsa-11851

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Simmons, Isaiah

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230516-usctheses-batch-1045 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu