Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) legislation on the decision-making process regarding school attendance for student-athletes
(USC Thesis Other)
The impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) legislation on the decision-making process regarding school attendance for student-athletes
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
The Impact of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Legislation on the Decision-Making
Process Regarding School Attendance for Student-Athletes
Emanuel J. Brown
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2023
© Copyright by Emanuel Jason Brown 2023
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Emanuel Jason Brown certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Maria Ott
Julie Rosseau
Rufus Tony Spann, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
The line between “amateur” and “professional” in collegiate athletics has been vague since its
inception. In an industry where the collection of talent is of the utmost importance, recruitment
by collegiate institutions is essential for institutional advancement. For years, those governing
collegiate athletics have fought against compensating student-athletes for preserving
“amateurism,” while schools, coaches, and businesses have been reaping the benefits. However,
that has now changed. On September 30, 2019, Senate Bill 206 (The Fair Pay to Play Act) was
implemented. It has wholly altered the college athletic landscape by compensating student-
athletes for their names, images, and likenesses (NIL), and the impact prompts the need for deep
inquiry. This study focuses on how the NIL influences collegiate recruitment. This qualitative
work dives into the student-athlete’s perspective to define their evolving expectations. Our
findings indicate that while compensation plays a role, it does not take away from their drive to
improve their skill set, their desire to be at institutions fostering personal and athletic
development, or their determination to compete for a winning program. Additionally, data
conveyed that while student-athletes know of the NIL, there is ample room for improvement in
their grasp of the legislation’s intricacies and understanding of strategic branding. Student-
athletes now also expect coaches to have knowledge of the particulars of NIL and be transparent
in sharing that knowledge during recruitment. As the entire collegiate sports industry undergoes
significant changes, information gathered from this study can be used to identify new
expectations during this time of uncertainty.
v
Dedication
To my wife and son. Allison, I appreciate your patience, understanding, and support. Wesley,
always remember that you were blessed with everything you need. You have been equipped. All
you must do is be disciplined in your approach, be resilient through frustration, and realize that
starting and finishing are the most challenging parts of any endeavor. A considerable amount of
the reason I took on this challenge is so that you could see that anything is possible. I love you
both. Thank you.
vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my most profound, sincerest sense of gratitude to the following, without
whom I would not have finished the project or been inspired to take this academic journey:
Dr. Rufus Tony Spann
Dr. Julie Rousseau
Dr. Maria Ott
Dr. Donald Rosenberg
Dr. Lisa Fears Hackett
Dr. Paul Foster
Dr. Bridget Robinson
John Mosely, MA
Coach Ken Hunter
The University of Southern California
East Los Angeles College
The City of Los Angeles
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................ 2
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 3
Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................................ 3
Limitations, Positionality, Delimitations ............................................................................. 4
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Study .................................................................................................. 13
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 14
Overview of Framework and Methodology ...................................................................... 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................... 15
The History of American Collegiate Athletics .................................................................. 15
The Formation of the NCAA ............................................................................................. 17
NCAA Functional Evolution ............................................................................................. 17
NCAA and Amateurism ..................................................................................................... 19
The Scholarship ................................................................................................................. 21
The Reality of the Student-Athlete .................................................................................... 22
Challenging the NCAA ..................................................................................................... 24
viii
Enter the Fair Pay to Play Act ........................................................................................... 26
California and the NIL ....................................................................................................... 29
NCAA Recruitment ........................................................................................................... 31
Gender and School Choice ................................................................................................ 32
The NIL and Women’s Collegiate Sports .......................................................................... 33
From Student-Athletes to Business Partners ..................................................................... 35
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 38
Social Media/Branding and Social Learning Theory ........................................................ 43
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 45
Chapter Three: Methodology ......................................................................................................... 47
Sample and Participants .................................................................................................... 47
Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 48
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 50
Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 54
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 55
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 57
Chapter Four: Results .................................................................................................................... 59
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 59
Research Question 1: Results/Discussion ......................................................................... 60
Research Question 2: Results/Discussion ......................................................................... 63
Research Question 3: Results/Discussion ......................................................................... 66
Findings ............................................................................................................................. 71
Implications for Practice .................................................................................................... 73
Future Research ................................................................................................................. 79
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 80
ix
References ..................................................................................................................................... 82
Appendix A: Survey Draft ........................................................................................................... 103
Appendix B: Consent Decree ...................................................................................................... 111
The Impact of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Legislation on the Decision-
Making ............................................................................................................................. 111
Process Regarding School Attendance for Student-Athletes ........................................... 111
x
List of Tables
Table A1: Interview Questions ................................................................................................... 104
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework A 42
Figure 2: Theoretical Framework B 43
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework 54
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Since its inception, American collegiate athletics has blurred the line between its
participants’ professional and amateur status. For example, the second recorded collegiate
contest, the 1855 rowing rematch between Harvard and Yale, was mired with controversy due to
the contentious status of an athletic participant (Smith, 2010). The clarification between
amateurism and compensation has been a subject of debate from the start, and they continue to
remain at the forefront of disagreement in the modern-day era. Since 1906, the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has operated as the industry’s governing body. Its
primary objective in regulating and administrating collegiate sports is to ensure that athletics
remains part of the educational process while retaining a clear demarcation between
intercollegiate athletics and professional sports (Pfleegor et al., 2019). Today, for the first time in
American collegiate athletics history, student-athletes can monetize their name, image, and
likeness (NIL). This occurrence marks a significant change in the landscape as the policy’s
implementation further scrutinizes determining how the idea of “amateur” should be framed.
This study will focus on the impact of the NIL and its impact on athletic recruitment. By
focusing on the student-athlete’s perspective, we will gain insight into how the evolving
industrial expectations are changing and discover what factors drive new-age student-athletes to
decide where to attend school.
Background of the Problem
During the embryonic stages of collegiate sports, the NCAA’s purpose may have had a
valid justification. However, today, the antiquation of the institution’s purpose has become
evident. After World War II, college sports became a tremendous commercial endeavor, and
despite this growth in commercial success, the NCAA continued to fight for the principles of
2
amateurism at the expense of student-athletes (Lodge, 2016). On June 30, 2021, the NCAA
finally altered its stance by approving an interim name, image, and likeness policy, thereby
prohibiting any college, conference, or athletic association from upholding regulations inhibiting
student-athletes from receiving payment based on their name, image, or likeness (Foley &
Lardner Sports & Entertainment Group, 2021). The NCAA defines the term “Names, Image, and
Likeness” (NIL) as “the three elements that make up the legal concept known as ‘right of
publicity’” (Stark-Mason, 2020, p. 1). The term and concept of “names, image, and likeness”
encapsulate an athlete’s ability to “sell NIL to entities for a host of activities, including
endorsements, advertisements, clothing, appearing at teaching clinics, appearing in video games,
or commercializing an athlete’s social media site” (Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020, p. 286).
Implementing admissible commercial compensation on the part of student-athletes ultimately
changes the landscape of collegiate sports, “ ”
This alteration in tradition serves as a distinct catalyst within the industry,
demarking the change in how amateurs are perceived within sports culture, thereby creating the
need for reassessment of old norms which previously governed the domain.
Statement of the Problem
Now that compensation of the student-athlete is permissible through monetization of the
NIL; further inquiry is needed to reassess how recruitment alteration has occurred. This study
fills the void by discovering the evolving expectations of the student-athlete within the
recruitment paradigm with the recent implementation of the NIL.
Purpose of the Study
This study aims to present new considerations of student-athletes concerning recruitment
concerning introducing the groundbreaking legislation, Senate Bill 206: the NIL. This study will
3
offer one of the first glimpses into student-athlete’s perspectives regarding the NIL, thereby
illuminating their concerns and presenting a body of work beneficial to both athletic programs
and student-athletes. Furthermore, the study will offer a comprehensive account of their
perspectives by interviewing prospective and current student-athletes from men’s and women’s
athletic programs. It will thus lay an academic foundation for further research into compensation
for collegiate athletes by understanding how the NIL has affected the recruitment dynamic of
athletic prospects.
Significance of the Study
This alteration in amateur status has wholly changed the collegiate athletics industry. As
NIL programs implement, programs with many student-athletes generating income from NIL
deals will claim a recruiting advantage (Grambeau, 2020). Further, brands appear eager to strike
deals with collegiate athletes to serve as brand spokespeople in the wake of the new NIL laws,
with Beats by Dre, Degree, and Taco John’s all announcing agreements. Schools are now
adapting by helping their student-athletes obtain deals, even if it may not support their bottom
line right away; it all comes down to recruiting prospects and securing the future of their brands
(Liffreing, 2021). Collegiate athletic leadership, sports media, and fans alike have all had the
opportunity to express their thoughts and ideas regarding the new changes. This study allows
student-athletes to share their perspectives on changing industry norms.
Validity and Reliability
Ensuring validity and reliability in qualitative research involves conducting the
investigation ethically (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Firestone (1987) explores how qualitative
paradigms employ different forms of rhetoric to convince consumers of trustworthiness: “The
qualitative study provides the reader with a depiction in enough detail to show that the author’s
4
conclusions make sense” (p. 19). For this study, transparency in our positionality,
conceptualization, data collection approach, and presentation are vital components that guarantee
the study’s soundness and defensibility. Lichtman (2013) offers her own “personal criteria” for a
good piece of qualitative research (p. 294); these criteria include being explicit about the
researcher’s role and their relationship to those studied, making a case that the topic of the study
is essential, being clear about the particulars of the study, and making a convincing presentation
of the study’s findings. This work, including the noted strategies, ensures meeting Lichtman’s
listed criteria to guarantee the finding’s validity and reliability. This dissertation hopes to serve as
a foundational investigational source on the topic of the NIL, and assurance of its validity and
reliability occurs mainly through the ethical nature of the study.
Limitations, Positionality, Delimitations
Limitations include external conditions restricting or constraining the study’s scope or
outcome. They are the factors that contribute to nullifying the purpose of qualitative research and
its transferability (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). The discussion of a study’s limiting factors is
imperative because it expresses to the reader that the researcher understands that no study is
without limitation, that the researcher has anticipated and given some thought to the
shortcomings of the research, and that the situating of the investigation transpires (Bloomberg &
Volpe, 2008). Acknowledging limitations is the only way to control their influence, consequently
protecting the validity and transferability of a given study.
Although ascertaining findings from this study occurred with the sincerest academic
intentions in mind, their perception should be in the context of certain study limitations. As the
primary researcher, it is important to note my positionality because it influences the topic of
study. The researcher’s worldview affects the language used, the questions asked, how the results
5
are analyzed, and the overall presentation of findings (Mason-Bish, 2019). For this reason,
researchers are encouraged to be reflexive and have an “internal dialogue and critical self-
evaluation of positionality and active acknowledgment and explicit recognition that this position
may affect the research process and outcome” (Berger, 2015, p. 229). Those conducting
qualitative research are an integral part of the process; separating the researcher from the final
product is thus neither possible nor desirable (Galdas, 2017).
Considering my positionality in conducting this study presented some limiting factors. As
a middle-aged African American male raised in the working class, who participated as both an
NCAA student-athlete and coach, I can relate to the perspectives of many of the participants. For
many, basketball is more than merely a game; it is a way to improve the quality of life for
ourselves and our families. I, too, have gone through the recruitment process and keenly
understand the experience as both a student-athlete and a coach. Further, I have had the unique
opportunity to work collegiately as a women’s coach at California State University, Dominguez
Hills, so I am familiar with gender-based differences in recruiting strategies.
During the study, I worked as a volunteer assistant coach at East Los Angeles College
(ELAC) with the Men’s Basketball Team, one of the country’s more highly regarded community
college programs; Three student-athletes from the team participated in the study. During the
2021–2022 and 2022–2023 seasons, ELAC consistently ranked as a top 10 team in California,
with many talented student-athletes recruited by 4-year institutions. My position allowed me
access to the inner workings of the sample and offered a reliable way to expand my sample size.
In addition, the team was followed by Netflix, which was filming Season 2 of its Last Chance U:
Basketball series during the season. Subsequently, the opportunity for team members to take
advantage of NIL opportunities upon their transfer was thus significantly increased.
6
For this study, three listed participants were student-athletes on a team that the study
facilitator coached. Although I did not influence any of their decision-making regarding their
athletic journey or answers during the interview, our relationship may be perceived to skew the
study’s findings. In addition, our sample included a variety of athletes from different sports, but
none who participated in football, a population that drives the market and deserves inclusion. In
future studies, student-athletes competing in football should have their voice heard as they
influence the market significantly and substantially impact the industrial landscape.
Furthermore, the small sample size was a limiting factor. Future studies could benefit
from a quantitative approach, as gathering data from a larger sample pool could offer more
numerical insight into the student-athlete perspective. Finally, since the NIL is so new to the
industry, participants have yet to have time to adjust and truly comprehend its impact on the
industry. Future studies will find the sample pool much more educated as the relationship
between student-athletes, businesses, and educational institutions become more defined and
enmeshed.
Since the influence of the NIL legislation on the industry is so recent, the initial limitation
of this study is the need for more scholarship on the subject. Typically, qualitative researchers
use background knowledge of the research topic; they consider an alternative interpretation of
the data, compare the study’s results with previous studies, and draw out its broader implications
(Choy, 2014). Unfortunately, since the influence of the NIL policy on collegiate sports is new,
the availability of peer-reviewed journalistic data is minuscule.
Due to my coach/player relationship with several of the participants, another legitimate
bias of note is what has been described as the friendship/acquiesce bias. Friendship/acquiesce
bias involves the influence of responses by the respondent’s perception of what answer would be
7
desirable to the researcher (Choy, 2014). Acquiescence, the tendency to agree with questionnaire
items regardless of content (“yea-saying”), is a well-known source of bias; acquiescence can bias
scale scores and inflate item covariances, distorting reliability estimates, factor structures, and
correlations (Lechner et al., 2019).
The acquiescence bias was mitigated primarily through open-ended questions during the
interview process. The deliberate exclusion of “yes or no” questions during the formulation of
the interview questions ensured a non-biased framework. Further, before the interview, strict
emphasis was placed on the idea of “no wrong answers”; this emphasis allowed for a “middle
ground” response. The acquiescence bias occurs when a participant strongly believes in one
view, which produces skewed results in favor of extreme answers (Moor, 2020). The open-
ended nature of the interview allowed participants to express their opinions on both sides of the
issue, refuting the acquiescence bias and allowing for a valid study. An additional reason why
the mitigation of acquiescence bias occurs is that the participants lack the motivation to
participate in the study. Some respondents, those who are not highly motivated to think through
the questions, take mental shortcuts when responding; The tendency to answer positively is one
of those common shortcuts (Moor 2020). For this study, each participant was eager to contribute.
The excitement about learning about the NIL and how it could impact their future was a
motivating factor that directly combated the impact of acquiescence bias. Finally, the fact that
most participants and I shared backgrounds mitigated the acquiescence bias. Studies have shown
that a substantial percentage of acquiescence variance came from country-level variations in
corruption levels and collectivism, indicating that external factors can influence submission to
acquiescence bias (Moor, 2020). My background as a former student-athlete allowed for the free
8
sharing of ideas, thereby combating the potential for friendship bias and allowing for strength in
the study’s validation.
Authoritative bias may be another factor of consideration. Authoritative bias occurs when
the opinions and instructions of authority figures are unquestionably accepted and obeyed
(Howard, 2019). Authoritative bias can also be a form of cognitive bias, incorrectly believing
that information verified by a person with formal authority is correct and without question
(Hinnosaar & Hinnosaar, 2012). Authoritative bias predisposes people toward believing in and
obeying authority figures (Silvester, 2021). In this study, the prevalence of the student-athlete-
coach dynamic presents valid questions regarding authoritative bias, thus prompting the need for
transparency in addressing the issue.
Although I had some authority as an assistant on the coaching staff, my impact on
playing time, or lack thereof, was minimal. I had no leverage concerning who played or how
much each played, as those decisions were ultimately the head coach’s responsibility. I did not
influence practice planning, substitution patterns, or recruitment. Additionally, I did not impact
where a student-athlete signed to play at a 4-year institution. This type of bias likely minimizes
the study due to my need for more authority in the dynamic. My primary role was to facilitate
athletes’ growth, individually and collectively, as a mentor and coach. I shared responsibility in
managing the study hall, keeping abreast of the group’s temperament, and relaying that
information to the coaching staff. Specifically, communicating issues individual team members
may be dealing with and sharing how it may affect their performance and impact team dynamics.
Other responsibilities included offering strategic insight concerning offensive plays, defensive
matchups or overall strategy, individual skill development, assessing game and practice
9
performance, and being a trusted confidant to whom each student-athlete could safely express the
difficulties they were experiencing on or off the court.
Cultural bias may be another factor that risks refuting the study’s validity. Although
many of the respondents and I share similar backgrounds, we differ in age. At the time of this
study, I was 43 years old, and the participants ranged from 18–25 years old. In the cross-cultural
psychology literature, evidence suggests that age is a factor in people’s tendency to favor their
group (Koyuncu, 2019). Maturation is one of the critical changes in person–culture interaction
that provides new tools for the individual to deploy while learning another’s culture (Bruner et
al., 1966). Understanding the role of age in combination with cultural values in in-group bias is
vital from a theoretical and practical point of view (Koyuncu, 2019). The meta-analysis
conducted by Doosje et al. (2013) indicated that developmental change is an essential factor in
in-group bias, illuminating yet another potential bias by which refutation of the validity of this
study may occur.
Cultural bias has long been a problem in cross-cultural research. Investigators studying
other societies find it difficult to avoid imposing their own—often unconscious—cultural
assumptions and points of view on their observations and interpretations (Funkhouser, 1993).
One of the ways that I attempted to mitigate the inclination for biased judgment in this study was
to empathize by increasing my exposure to youth culture away from basketball. Specifically, I
took note of the music, clothing, television shows, and shared personal values of young people
around the same age as the study’s participants. Taking time to understand their values helped
me understand their motivations, giving me insight into their individual and collective principles.
Multicultural exposure leads to a reduction in stereotype endorsement and is a crucial contributor
to consequential outcomes of bias reduction (Tadmor et al., 2012). Another way that I worked to
10
reduce my personal bias was by increasing my self-awareness and reassessing how my values
have changed due to age. Exploring the experiences and perceptions of bias can provide keen
awareness and insight into our common humanity; when combined with strategic self-reflection,
such attention can improve rapport and communication, mainly when cultural differences exist
(White et al., 2017). Admittedly, it did take time to learn about the participants’ lives
individually to curb the innate instinct for biases. However, I was able to suppress the inclination
to judge through a shared dedication from both sides to understand each other and win games.
Speaking to younger student-athletes and sincerely intending to empathize by learning
about their struggles, setbacks, and triumphs allowed me to see myself reflected in their
experiences, thereby strongly reducing the capacity for cultural bias. Empathy mitigates the
adverse influence of bias because its presence is associated with positive attitudes toward the
group (Sukhera, 2019, p .23). Society must foster continued, positive family relations and social
support; such relationships buffer against negative self-views and psychological outcomes;
Research has demonstrated that this dramatically reduces the chances of developing ageist
attitudes (Nelson, 2019). Total alleviation of cultural bias is impossible. To mitigate the natural
propensity of prejudice, it takes a concentrated, sincere attempt to immerse oneself in areas
outside one’s comfort zone. To maintain the validity of this study, a genuine effort to empathize,
encouragement of free-flowing dialogue without wrong answers, and the creation of
environments that allowed participants the freedom to be themselves ensured the reliability of
the dissertation.
Definition of Terms
• Division I member institutions are those that must sponsor at least seven sports for
men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women), with two team sports
11
for each gender. Each playing season must also be represented by each gender. There
are contest and participant minimums for each sport and scheduling criteria. For sports
other than football and basketball, Division I schools must play 100% of the minimum
number of contests against Division I opponents; anything over the minimum number
of games must be 50% Division I. Men’s and women’s basketball teams must play all
but two games against Division I teams; men must play one-third of all their contests
in the home arena. For football, schools are classified as either Football Bowl
Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) or NCAA Football Championship Subdivision
(formerly Division I-AA). Football Bowl Subdivision schools are usually elaborate
programs, and their teams must meet minimum attendance requirements (an average
of 15,000 people in actual or paid attendance per home game). NCAA Football
Championship Subdivision teams do not need to meet minimum attendance
requirements. Division I schools must meet minimum financial aid awards for their
athletics program. There are maximum financial aid awards for each sport that a
Division I school cannot exceed National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA],
2022a).
• Division II institutions are those that must sponsor at least five sports for men and five
for women (or four for men and six for women), with two team sports for each gender
and each playing season represented by each gender. Contest and participant
minimums are included for each sport, and scheduling criteria for football and
basketball. Attendance requirements are also alleviated for football and basketball.
The offering of partial scholarships is the norm for student-athletes (NCAA, 2022a).
12
• Division III institutions must sponsor at least five sports for men and five for women,
with two team sports for each gender and each playing season represented by each
gender. There are contest and participant minimums for each sport. Division III
student-athletes receive no financial aid related to their athletic ability; instead,
Division III athletics encourages participation by maximizing the number and variety
of athletic opportunities available to students, emphasizing regional in-season and
conference competitions (NCAA, 2022a).
• The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) has administered
programs and championships that appropriately balance the overall educational
experience. Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, the NAIA is a governing body of
small athletics programs dedicated to character-driven intercollegiate athletics. The
NAIA was the first collegiate association to invite historically Back institutions into
membership and was the first to sponsor both men’s and women’s national
championships (NCAA, 2022).
• The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a member-led organization
dedicated to college athletes’ well-being and lifelong success (NCAA, 2022b).
• Title IX, introduced in 1972, protects people from gender discrimination in education
or federal financial assistance activities. Title IX states:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under
any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Title IX applies to schools, local and state educational agencies, and other federal
financial assistance institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2021, p. 2).
13
• The Name, Image, and Likeness Bill (NIL), Senate Bill 206, or The Fair Play to Pay
Act, refers to a policy that allows student-athletes to profit from their name, image,
and likeness without losing their athletic eligibility (Thompson, 2022).
• Student-athlete refers to one whose enrollment was solicited by a member of the
athletics staff or another athletics representative with a view toward the student’s
ultimate participation in the intercollegiate athletics program (NCAA, n.d.)
• Prospective student-athlete is a high school student-athlete eligible to compete at a
community college or 4-year institution.
• Community college refers to a public institution of higher education with the highest
degree predominately awarded to students being an associate’s degree.
• Recruiting refers to any solicitation of prospective student-athletes or their parents by
an institutional staff member or by a representative of the institution’s athletics
interest to secure a prospective student-athlete’s enrollment and ultimate participation
in the athletics program (Compliance, n.d.)
Organization of the Study
Formulation of this study occurred in the traditional five-chapter approach, with Chapter
One as the introduction, Chapter Two including the literature review, Chapter Three serving as
the methodology, Chapter Four presenting results, and Chapter Five offering the summary,
implications, and conclusions. Development of each chapter materialized in a way that allows for
a comprehensive exploration of each research question. The literature review provides a
comprehensive account of the context surrounding the topic. It discusses the historical
background of the NCAA, the circumstances leading up to the introduction and implementation
of the NIL, past recruitment practices, gender considerations, and implications involving the
14
legislation. The methodology describes the philosophical groundwork supporting the chosen
research strategies employed for the work. The presentation portion of Chapter Four includes the
results of the findings and confirms the answering of the research questions. The final chapter
summarizes the work, discusses implications, explores additional study topics, and offers a
conclusion. The organization of this body of work occurred intending to address each of the
study’s research questions comprehensively and clearly.
Research Questions
Based on a review of the literature, the following research questions guided this study:
1. How does the implementation of NIL legislation impact, if at all, the school decision-
making process for potential collegiate student-athletes?
2. From the student-athlete perspective, how has the NIL changed the recruitment
dynamic?
3. How prepared are potential collegiate student-athletes to take advantage of these new
NIL opportunities?
Overview of Framework and Methodology
By integrating Bandura’s social learning theory and Piaget’s constructivist approach as
foundational frameworks, this study aims to examine the impact of the NIL on collegiate athletic
recruitment. It will offer a clear and comprehensive interpretation while seeking to understand
how external stimuli (in this case, the introduction of the NIL) affect the prospective student-
athlete’s decision-making. In addition, this dissertation examines the issue from the view of the
participants, thereby embracing the constructivist approach. The combination of both
frameworks offers an innovative body of work that presents comprehensive data representing the
influence of the legislation and the perspectives of those most affected by the change.
15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The sports world has changed, and collegiate athletes can now collect revenue using their
names, images, and likenesses (NIL). This newly implemented ruling generates concern
regarding student-athlete recruitment, as it creates yet another variable in an already inexact
science. The implementation of Senate Bill 206 leaves the athletic programs questioning past
recruitment strategies, once found to be effective, to be uncertain. Therefore, the primary focus
of this literature review is to identify industry themes that may help clarify the new norms
concerning the recruitment of prospects, thereby offering valuable insights to both recruiters and
prospects alike.
The following literature review aims to outline the rich and robust context that frames the
NIL policy. First, it is essential to begin with an outline of the history of American collegiate
sports, as this context serves as the backdrop for introducing such a monumental change within
the sector. Second, examining the formation and initial function of the NCAA is imperative to
understanding the origins of governance within the industry. Third, the review explores how the
role of the NCAA has evolved in modern times and then addresses the intricacies of the NIL
policy. Lastly, the section concludes with a discussion of the theoretical framework used to
examine the topic.
The History of American Collegiate Athletics
The credit for American collegiate athletics’ initial origin and organization goes to
students who used athletic activity to remedy their otherwise dull and dreary educational
experiences. The antebellum campus lacked sports, and student life was boring, well-regulated,
and academically rigorous (Lewis, 1970). Faculty members, usually former clergypersons,
exercised complete control over every aspect of the lives of their students and generally regarded
16
play as a waste of time (Boston, 1888). Resentment over the faculty’s emphasis on study gave
rise to the first campus sporting tradition. This change in philosophy occurred when
undergraduates at Yale and Harvard created the original sports clubs (Hall, 1851). Yale students
formed a boat club in 1843, with Harvard following suit in 1844; they confined their activity to
recreational boating and social gatherings until around August 1852, when the one existing
Harvard club and two of Yale’s three crews competed in a regatta on New Hampshire’s Lake
Winnipesaukee (Lewis, 1970). The event concluded with a Harvard victory over Yale in front of
approximately 1,000 spectators.
Nearly as soon as intercollegiate athletics was introduced, questions demanding reform
arose. The first challenge came about when Yale and Harvard renewed their athletic competition
in 1855, and Harvard decided that the same coxswain who led the crew in 1852 would again be
the leader despite having graduated 2 years prior; he participated, Harvard won again, and
questions regarding fair and equitable play would remain on the agenda for another half-century
(Smith, 2010).
Over the first 50 years of collegiate athletics’ conception, reform revolved around four
main issues: competitive equity, financial solvency, brutal or unsavory practices, and academic
integrity (Barrett, 2013). As intercollegiate athletics increased in popularity throughout the late
1800s, university faculty became more concerned about the role of athletics within the academy.
Teams comprised not only traditional students but also graduate students, alums, part-time
students, and some professionals who were not enrolled (Osborne et al., 2020). As a result,
faculty continually fought to gain oversight over athletics throughout the 1880s and 1890s,
attempting to address issues such as professionalism, commercialism, academic standing, and
transfers for athletic participation (Weathersby, 2016).
17
The Formation of the NCAA
As the turn of the century approached, and the popularity of college football grew, the
pressure to produce winning teams escalated exponentially; as a result, cheating and commercial
activity significantly increased, and safety was the least important priority. As a result, student-
athletes suffered as many as 18 deaths and over 100 severe injuries during the 1905 season, thus
demonstrating the undeniable need for higher authority and stricter regulation (Smith, 2000). By
1905, the heightened level of crisis due to the sheer brutality of the game prompted an
intervention by President Theodore Roosevelt himself. In October of the same year, Roosevelt
commissioned collegiate representatives to visit the White House to address the increasing
violence in college football (Oriard, 2012). After confronting the schools with examples of their
egregious behaviors, the president extracted an agreement to display sportsmanship and abide by
the game’s rules. The news of the meeting prompted a broader reform movement, leading to the
establishment of the Intercollegiate Athletic Association on December 28, 1905, which was later
renamed the National Collegiate Athletic Association in 1910 (Smith, 2000).
NCAA Functional Evolution
The initial purpose of the NCAA was to formulate rules for various intercollegiate sports;
however, due to the rapid increase in popularity, the mission quickly evolved (Custis et al.,
2019). As competition grew, the perfect storm of the ending of the Second World War, the advent
of television, and more people attending college resulted in schools beginning to invest heavily
in developing their sporting programs. As a result, intercollegiate athletics became a marketing
tool to attract prospective students. Unfortunately, the increase in resources also brought scandal,
and the publicity of recruiting excesses inspired the NCAA to expand its role in regulating
intercollegiate sports.
18
In 1948, the NCAA created the “Sanity Code” as its first attempt to expand its influence
on the business side of college sports (Smith, 2000). The “Sanity Code” was created to “alleviate
the proliferation of exploitive practices in the recruitment of student-athletes,” but it quickly fell
short of its intended purpose (Smith, 2000, p. 14). The code, which placed restrictions on
financial aid, recruiting, academic standards, institutional control, and amateurism, found several
schools in violation. However, enforcement of the code was difficult as many deemed it too
draconian (Pfleegor et al., 2019). With the only remedy for breaching the policy being expulsion,
the committee in charge of enforcement was too timid to condemn anyone; consequently, only
three years later, the code was eliminated (Custis et al., 2019).
To address these shortcomings with investigations and penalty assignments, the NCAA
created the Executive Director position; they hired Walter Byers in 1951 to lead investigations,
improve policies and procedures for policing infractions, support fair play awareness, and
generate revenue (Byers & Hammer, 1995). In 1952, the NCAA reformed its enforcement
system by creating a new Membership Committee and the Subcommittee on Infractions, with
both factions possessing the authority to place offenders on probation (NCAA, 2013). The
council levied the first corporate dissolution against an institution in 1953 when they sanctioned
Kentucky University for offering impermissible financial aid packages to its student-athletes
participating on the basketball team. The university’s reaction represented a significant landmark
for the NCAA, as its faculty accepted the sanction. Consequently, the Kentucky Men’s basketball
team remained dormant for the 1953 season (NCAA, 2013).
Recurring infractions resulted in the reorganization of the NCAA once again. In 1954, the
replacement of the Membership Committee and the Subcommittee on Infractions occurred, and
the implementation of the Committee on Infractions (COI) began. The COI now had sole
19
authority to handle enforcement, investigate misconduct, and levy sanctions (Pfleegor et al.,
2019). The creation of the COI, a stand-alone committee, is the genesis of much of the NCAA’s
current sanctioning process. The committee maintains regulative authority over the NCAA’s
investigation and penalty delivery (Wong et al., 2009). By the early 1970s, the NCAA’s power
had only increased, and those heavily involved in college athletics began to criticize the
association for its excessive use of authority (Custis et al., 2019). Finally, in 1976, the NCAA
was officially granted even more enforcement power when it obtained the ability to enforce rules
by directly penalizing schools, giving it control over individual athletic programs, coaches, and
even student-athletes (Smith, 2000). Although its increasingly aggressive policy enforcement
resulted in an investigation by the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigation, the NCAA survived the inquiries and was left with its power
virtually unscathed (Custis et al., 2019).
The NCAA and its member institutions have created their commercialization industry
through nationally televised games, million-dollar contract signings, and aggressive merchandise
promotions. This evolution in demand has also created a need for a shift in regulation; still, the
original NCAA policies remained static due to its determination of one idea: amateurism (Custis
et al., 2019).
NCAA and Amateurism
The NCAA’s first attempt at defining amateurism in 1906 created several regulations to
keep teams compliant. First, financial inducements from any source, including faculty or
university financial aid committees, were not allowed. Further, singling out prominent athletic
students from preparatory schools violated the amateur code, as was playing those who were not
bona fide students (Muenzen, 2003). A decade later, the alteration of the NCAA’s definition of
20
amateurism came to fruition. In 1916, it would define the term as describing a student-athlete
who “participates in competitive physical sports only for pleasure and the physical, mental,
moral, and social benefits directly derived from that place” (Muenzen, 2003, p. 259).
Amateurism and its relation to commercialism have always been a primary concern of the
NCAA. This dynamic culminated in the well-known 1929 report by the Carnegie Foundation,
which was the first landmark to reform collegiate athletics. At the request of several collegiate
agencies, including the NCAA, the foundation trustees authorized an extensive nationwide study
of college athletic programs to determine whether the pendulum had continued to shift away
from academics and toward athletics (Carvalho & Baker, 2019). The report was only mildly
positive; the principal author, Howard Savage, cited several “conflicts between athletic ambitions
and academic standards” (Oriard, 2012, p. 7). Recruitment and financial excess were not the only
topics mentioned in the report, and Savage also took sports media to task. He considered the
sporting press an active participant in commercializing college sports (Thelen, 1994).
The nature of college athletics was highly controversial in 1929, and public response to
the Carnegie report was eerily instructive for consideration of today’s climate. However, the
announcement’s timing may have been inappropriate, as its publishing occurred the week Wall
Street crashed. The limited coverage by the press and the public’s indifference resulted in the
report needing more impact (Oriard, 2012). By the time of the Carnegie Foundation report, big-
time college football had become too popular to fail. As a result, collegiate sports coverage
exploded, coinciding with the newly introduced mass media machine. By the end of the 1920s,
the media and college sports were mutually dependent in ways now taken for granted (Oriard,
2012).
21
The aforementioned Sanity Codes of the 1940s attempted to address amateurism issues.
However, they proved highly unsuccessful, as the NCAA’s member institutions refused to
enforce their adopted code (Byers & Hammer, 1995). The history of the NCAA’s initial attempts
to regulate amateurism and recruiting illustrates a fundamental problem: the institution could not
force its member institutions to commit fully to the ideal of amateur sport (Yen, 2011).
Eventually, the NCAA capitulated to the economic realities and allowed its members to offer
athletic scholarships, a significant departure from the initial ideal of collegiate sports as an
“avocation” (Tatos, 2019). The 1950s demarked the industry’s proverbial “line in the sand,” as
the decade represented an era of unprecedented scandal that strongly influenced the
overemphasis on sports in higher education that is evident today; point-shaving scandals in both
basketball and football, the cheating scandal at West Point in 1951, followed by the slush-fund
scandals in the old Pacific Coast Conference forced institutions to pick sides. Universities had to
choose whether to drop football (as several Catholic universities did), de-emphasize it (as the Ivy
League most conspicuously did), or go along with an over-emphasized version of the sport
(Oriard, 2012). Public pushback to the NCAA’s oversight and unscrupulous recruiting practices
relaxed the strict no-compensation model of amateurism, thus allowing collegiate institutions to
offer prospective student-athletes educational scholarships known as grant-in-aid (Lodge, 2016).
In finally solving the decades-long battle over “professionalism” by adopting athletic
scholarships in 1956, the NCAA accepted “over-emphasis” as the norm (Oriard, 2012).
The Scholarship
Scrutiny of the “grant-in-aid” scholarship is also prevalent in collegiate sports. Supporters
of the NCAA model have long extolled the scholarship as adequate compensation for those
fortunate enough to land an offer. Val Ackerman and Larry Scott (commissioners of the Big 12
22
and Pac-12 conferences) argue that free education is enough remuneration because student-
athletes receive an academic scholarship, high-quality medical care, academic support, and
quality travel experiences (Ackerman & Scott, 2016). Additionally, they cite slightly higher
graduation rates compared to other college students, and reception of different forms of
compensation included within the scholarship model, including opportunities to train, coach, and
compete (Custis et al., 2019). In a study performed using the Professional Golf Association
(PGA) tour statistics, training was marginally accretive to expected earnings; the study also
showed that training time devoted explicitly to specific skills resulted in greater earnings
(Shmanske, 1992). Scholarships provide the benefit of tuition, room and board expenses, and the
expectation that career earnings will increase after earning a degree (Becker, 1994). Supporters
of the scholarship compensation model have various compelling points in their argument and
have sustained the stance for decades; however, the perspectives of naysayers shine a light on a
different perspective.
The Reality of the Student-Athlete
Although many aspects of athletic scholarships benefit collegiate athletes, a quick look at
the facts shows that they are grossly overvalued. The amount of commitment and resolve needed
to participate in collegiate athletics as a student-athlete seems to be misunderstood. According to
the NCAA’s 2016 study of the student-athlete experience, Division I football student-athletes
reported spending a median of 42 hours weekly on athletic pursuits and 38.5 hours weekly on
academics, resulting in an 80-hour workweek (NCAA, 2016). Before NIL implementation,
student-athletes on grant-in-aid scholarships received benefits valued at roughly $23,872
annually (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).
23
Supporters of the scholarship model argue that extended hours are a safe investment in
exchange for attaining a professional opportunity, a perspective that has been disproven. For
example, in an NCAA study in 2011, 76% of Division I men’s basketball student-athletes
reported that they were at least “somewhat likely” to become professional or Olympic athletes
(NCAA, 2011). In actuality, the NCAA wrote in 2017 that the National Basketball Association
(NBA) would draft only 1.1% of NCAA players, and only 19.2% will play some form of
professional basketball (NCAA, 2017). Likewise, although 58% of Division I football student-
athletes believed they were “somewhat likely” to play professionally, only 1.9% would play in
the National Football League (NFL), Canadian Football League, or Arena Football League
(NCAA, 2017).
Examining the idea through the frame of revenue generation also reveals that the
scholarship model is questionable. In 2010, CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting announced a
14-year agreement to broadcast the NCAA men’s basketball tournament for $10.8 billion. In
2012, a 30-second television commercial during the Final Four cost $700,000. Roughly 96% of
the revenue for 2012 went to member conferences and institutions, while athletes received no
compensation or monetary benefits from their grant-in-aid. (Borghesi, 2018). In addition, the
NCAA is the most significant player in the $4 billion market for licensed merchandise from
college athletics, which includes products such as replica jerseys, posters, DVDs, and video
games. The revenue generated from the merchandise sales generates significant royalties for the
NCAA member institutions. Still, little to none reaches the pockets of the students whose names
and faces drive those sales (Wieberg & Berkowitz, 2009).
24
Challenging the NCAA
The national debate on the injustices of collegiate sports prompted calls for congressional
action on the issue of the student-athlete name, picture, or appearance (Novak, 2021). This
disagreement has led to many lawsuits, notably the O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association and the Alston v. NCAA cases.
In 2009, Ed O’Bannon—a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
basketball star who led their 1995 NCAA championship team—and 19 other former Division I
former student-athletes filed a suit against the NCAA and its business conglomerates, claiming
that the association was infringing on the publicity rights of these student-athletes by using their
images for commercial gain (Wong, 2010). O’Bannon, who was in a marketing position at a Las
Vegas car dealership, discovered an unauthorized image portrayed in a video game (Lodge,
2016). In this class action suit, he challenged the NCAA and listed the Collegiate Licensing
Company (CLC) as a co-defendant and Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) as a co-conspirator. The lawsuit
alleged that the NCAA entered into licensing agreements with companies such as the CLC and
EA concerning using former student-athletes’ images, thereby violating the student-athlete’s right
to publicity (Wong, 2010).
In a 2014 decision, the district court ruled that the NCAA had anti-competitive and pro-
competitive effects on trade. However, two “less restrictive alternatives” were available to fulfill
the NCAA’s pro-competitive justifications (Novak, 2021). The two less restrictive alternatives,
according to the court, included (a) payment of scholarships or stipends up to the cost of
attendance beyond the grant-in-aid cap and (b) permitting colleges to hold a portion of licensing
revenues generated from the use of student names, images, and likenesses in trust, to be
distributed to student-athletes in equal shares after they leave school, or their eligibility expires
25
(Novak, 2014). On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district
court’s determination that the NCAA rules violated the Sherman Act. This 1890 antitrust law
upheld the rule of free competition but rejected the court’s decision that creating a trust fund for
student-athletes was a less restrictive alternative. As a result, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
court’s judgment of the Sherman Act violation and the injunction requiring the NCAA to permit
schools to provide compensation up to the total cost of attendance (O’Bannon v. NCAA, 2015).
Although the O’Bannon case targeted specific NCAA rules that restricted student-athlete
income from outside sources, other litigation has challenged the “interconnected” set of NCAA
rules that cap the compensation a student-athlete may receive. In the NCAA Athletic Grant-in-
Aid-Cap Antitrust Litigation, plaintiffs brought antitrust claims alleging that the NCAA and
athletic conferences colluded to restrict the compensation a school may provide athletes (NCAA)
(Grant-in-Aid Antitrust Litigation, 2019). The district court held that the NCAA limits on
education-related benefits provided to student-athletes were unreasonable. On appeal, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the conclusion, thereby prohibiting the NCAA from limiting education-related
benefits (NCAA Grant-in-Aid Antitrust Litigation, 2019). The grant-in-aid litigation essentially
facilitated schools’ ability to offer additional compensation and benefits to their student-athletes
if they were related to education (Meyer & Zimbalist, 2020).
The NCAA v. Alston case similarly supported the idea of student-athlete compensation.
Shawne Alston, a running back at West Virginia from 2009 to 2012, also raised the legal question
of whether the NCAA’s ban on direct payments to student-athletes violated federal law under the
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The Sherman Act’s subtitle (“An Act to Protect Trade and
Commerce Against Unlawful Restraints and Monopolies”) targeted the large monopolies or
trusts that had become dominant in the early industrial age (Marietta, 2022). Alston argued that,
26
although student-athletes were producers working in a prominent economic market and should
thus have the opportunity to work for the highest bidder, the market had colluded illegally by
agreeing as an industry to cap wages at close to $0 per hour (Marietta, 2022). Specifically, the
NCAA’s procompetitive justification for the status quo (whereby the NCAA limits athlete
compensation tied to academics and athletics and primarily prohibits athletes from monetizing
their name, image, and likeness rights) was that the survival of the product depends on such
restrictions (Marino, 2021). The NCAA reasoned that intercollegiate athletics differentiates itself
from professional sports chiefly through the amateur status of its athletes; therefore, diminishing
the purity of amateurism through direct payment would render the status of amateurism, used by
the NCAA, obsolete (Marino, 2021). Challenging the NCAA’s argument that maintaining
compensation restrictions is necessary to distinguish college athletics from professional athletics,
Justice Kavanaugh stated,
Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers
a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a
reasonable market rate. … The NCAA is not above the law (Gregory, 2021, para. 3).
Inspired by the O’Bannon and Alston findings, California state lawmakers drafted the Fair Pay to
Play Act, which was signed into law on September 30, 2019 (McCann, 2019). The law makes it
illegal for postsecondary institutions, athletic associations, conferences, or groups with authority
over intercollegiate athletics to prevent student-athletes from earning compensation for using
their name, image, or likeness (Congressional Research Services, 2021).
Enter the Fair Pay to Play Act
California’s Fair Pay to Play Act, originally known as Senate Bill 206, officially allows
student-athletes to receive sponsorships and endorsements without fear of NCAA ineligibility.
27
Section 67456 (a) (1) – Right of a participant in intercollegiate athletics to earn compensation
states:
A postsecondary educational institution shall not uphold any rule, requirement, standard,
or other limitation that prevents a student of that institution participating in intercollegiate
athletics from earning compensation because of the use of the student’s name, image, or
likeness. (California legislative information, 2019).
The law further states that a postsecondary institution, athletic association, conference, or other
group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics shall not prevent a prospective
student-athlete from compensation concerning the athlete’s name, image, or likeness (California
legislative information, 2019). In addition, the decree allows for the representation of the
student-athlete concerning contracts or legal matters, including, but not limited to, representation
provided by athlete agents or legal representation provided by attorneys (California legislative
information, 2019). Finally, the law states that a team’s contract shall not prevent a student-
athlete from using the athlete’s name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes when the
athlete is not engaged in official team activities (California legislative information, 2019).
The law also contains caveats protecting the interests of the institutions. For example,
section 67456 (e) (1) of Senate Bill No. 206 (California legislative information, 2019) states that
a student-athlete shall not enter a contract providing compensation to the athlete for the use of
the athlete’s name, image, or likeness if a provision of the contract conflicts with a condition of
the athlete’s team contract. Furthermore, the law states that the athlete shall disclose any
agreement based on name, image, or likeness to an institution’s official who is to be designated
by that institution (California legislative information, 2019).
28
Shortly after California passed the Fair Pay to Play Act, the NCAA’s Federal and State
Legislation Working Group presented recommendations for the NIL compensation issue to the
NCAA Board of Governors. As a result, it was permitted to allow students participating in
athletics to benefit from using their NIL in a manner consistent with the values and beliefs of
intercollegiate athletics (Novak, 2021). Although the NCAA did not officially adopt its rule
allowing student-athletes to monetize their NIL, it approved a so-called interim policy that says,
“Yes, student-athletes can abide by the law of your state without subjection to NCAA
punishment or ramifications” (Romano, 2021, p. 8). The NCAA policy also allows student-
athletes to hire “professional service providers” who can pursue and negotiate various
endorsement and marketing opportunities on behalf of student-athletes with the following
provisions: the agent provides advice and assistance in contract negotiations and the marketing
of NIL ventures, and student-athletes must also disclose all NIL venture relationships and
contracts with agents to their schools (Romano, 2021, para, 2).
Although the law is groundbreaking, it presents many questions of concern. Whereas
many athletes will finally be able to earn money using their likenesses, student-athletes still lack
a share of the lucrative apparel deals typical within college athletics. Across the country,
companies such as Nike, Adidas, and Under Armor enter comprehensive contracts with
university athletic departments, requiring that all “uniforms, footwear, apparel, and equipment”
feature their logos; top contracts earn collegiate athletic departments millions in cash and product
allotments yearly (Bank, 2020, para, 1). Although the new legislation broadens athletes’ ability to
profit from their college fame, the “no conflicts” provision makes it unlikely that student-athletes
will benefit substantially from the “gargantuan sums of money” that the students generate for
their school (Sherman, 2019, para 5).
29
Other questions rest on the uncertainty as to whether the law will be ineffectual.
McCarthy (2020) noted that although some student-athletes might reach the status of micro-
influencers, only some would generate any amount of money, and the little income they would
make could cancel out their Pell Grants. Moreover, for most college student-athletes, NIL
opportunities will not come in the form of extensive national advertising campaigns, as some
might expect. Instead, the most common ways student-athletes might benefit will be through
local businesses, events, and social media (McCarthy, 2020).
California and the NIL
Although the NIL is unique in its own right, the state of California has differentiated itself
from many others. Unlike many Southern states, California has no state law-mandated restriction
on the kinds of endorsements that student-athletes can accept; in contrast, many states have
provisions in their NIL bills that prohibit athletes from working with companies like e-cigarette
and alcohol brands or sports gambling companies (Iconsource, 2021). The California “Fair Pay
to Play Act” does not explicitly address alcohol-related sponsorships; it only mentions that an
athlete cannot sign a contract conflicting with their team contract (Wittry, 2021). Additionally,
specific language in the Act mandates that a team contract cannot prevent an athlete from using
the NIL for commercial purposes when the athlete is not engaged in official team activities
(Andrews, 2021). The permissiveness of the legislation in California leaves the state open to
many questions regarding the morality and fairness of their sales practices involving collegiate
athletes. Conversely, it positions the state as a leader in the industry, making it an epicenter for
youth athletic development.
California has differentiated itself further by allowing high school athletes to secure
endorsement deals. The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the governing body
30
responsible for the state’s high school athletic activities, allows athletes to engage in NIL
opportunities without jeopardizing their NCAA eligibility, and companies are taking advantage
of this authorization (Nover, 2021). For example, Alyssa and Gisele Thompson, two standout
women’s soccer student-athletes from Harvard-Westlake High School in Los Angeles, have
recently forged a deal with Nike; Alyssa (a junior), was a starter on the USA’s U-20 team that
won the Confederation of North, Central America, and Caribbean Association Football
(CONCACAF) championship in March, while Gisele (a sophomore) was a starter on the U-17
USA team that won a CONCACAF title on May 8 (Jackson, 2022). Both are committed to
playing soccer at Stanford after high school and are beneficiaries of legislation in California that
grants high school athletes the same access as collegiates regarding the NIL (Jackson, 2022).
California is even going further by introducing Senate Bill 1401, the College Athlete
Race and Gender Equality Act, which stipulates that 50% of annual revenues in football and
men’s and women’s basketball be split with the athletes (McCollough, 2022). This bill, authored
by Senator Steven Bradford, would require higher education institutions to establish a degree
completion fund for each participating student-athlete. The bill would also mandate student-
athletes access to money in the degree completion fund of up to $25,000 per academic year (SB
1401, 2022). It also stipulates that if the athlete completes an undergraduate baccalaureate degree
within six years from enrollment, they must receive the balance of their degree completion fund
within 60 days of showing proof of completion (SB 1401, 2022). Senate Bill 1401 couches its
equally important purpose concerning racial reconciliation, citing data that reveals that Black
basketball and football student-athletes have disproportionately low college graduation rates,
whilst their schools generate excessive athletic program expenditures on salaries, administration,
and facilities from their talent (Libit, 2022).
31
NCAA Recruitment
In non-sport contexts, recruiters focus on securing commitments from desired individuals
deemed able to fill the required roles for the respective organization (Magnussen et al., 2014).
The job functions of recruiters in most non-sport realms are usually represented by human
resources personnel who do not influence the future role of the applicants’ daily work lives, and
their responsibility ends after the screening and hiring process is complete (Breaugh & Stark,
2000). Alternatively, coaches in the NCAA sports context are more akin to corporate executives
or upper-level management: they interact with the student-athlete daily, are actively involved in
their lives, and play salient roles in decisions affecting their athletic future (Croft, 2008). While
these recruits are away from home and need guidance during transitioning to a new stage, they
may even look to coaches and sports teams to fill surrogate guardian and surrogate family
positions (Magnussen, 2014). Recruiting student-athletes for college sports is a multi-year and
highly competitive process fundamentally grounded in building and maintaining relationships
with recruits, families, friends, trainers, and high school coaches (Feldman, 2007).
Historically, athletes have made choices regarding school based on various factors:
academics, the opportunity to play, the amount of financial aid or athletic scholarship offered, the
cost of attending college, availability of extra assistance, and the head coach (Goss et al., 2006).
However, several previous research studies have collaboratively revealed that the most
influential factor in a student-athlete’s college selection process is the degree program offered,
and other studies have found athletic factors to be the most critical factor in the college selection
process (Lim et al., 2017). For example, Kankey and Quarterman’s (2007) study ranked the top
five college factors in order of importance: the availability of major/academic program, head
coach, career opportunities after graduation, team social atmosphere, and financial aid amount.
32
Moreover, Letawsky et al. (2005) found similar results from 126 first-year student-athletes
enrolled at an NCAA Division I middle-sized university. Their study similarly ranked the top five
most influential college factors in order: degree program options, head coach, academic support
services, community, and the school’s sports traditions. Interestingly, Pauline’s (2012) study of
982 first-year male and female soccer student-athletes from Division I, II, and III found that the
top five factors influencing college choice in rank order were academic program or major,
academic reputation, career opportunities after graduation, the overall reputation of the
university, and social atmosphere of the team.
Gender and School Choice
Although the influences on men’s and women’s choice of school are similar, differences
are apparent. Gabert et al. (1999) discovered that both male and female athletes chose the head
coach as their top influential factor and the opportunity to play as their third most important
factor; also notable was that, of the top five factors, only two were related to athletic
participation, Xin Jean Lim (2017) discovered that, among the top five factors for male and
female athletes, men chose the essential factor as head coach while women chose degree
programs. Letawsky et al. (2005) discovered that men chose degree program options as the most
significant factor, while women chose academic support services. Lastly, Pauline (2012)
compared first-year male and female student-athletes from the same sport across three NCAA
divisions and found that educational factors were most important to first-year male and female
soccer student-athletes. Although minor gender differences existed in terms of the most
influential factors indicated by student-athletes, the similarities found between genders were
more prevalent. Even so, determining gender differences in college selection factors is critical so
coaches can effectively tailor their recruiting practices (Lim et al., 2017).
33
In pursuit of athletic success, colleges and universities—whether large or small, public or
private—at the NCAA Division I level expend substantial financial and human capital on
recruiting student-athletes (King, 2005). Further, recruiter social aptitude characteristics
moderate the relationship between recruiter influence and prospect fit perception; the higher the
level of social effectiveness, the greater the extent to which a recruiter influences a recruit’s
perceptions of fit with the recruiter’s school (Magnusen et al., 2014). Coaches and recruiters are
usually savvy networkers, easily inspiring comfort, trust, and genuineness. In addition, these
individuals have a high level of political skill and know how to precisely execute their tactics to
achieve the desired effect of the influence attempt (Ferris et al., 2005).
The NIL and Women’s Collegiate Sports
Another intriguing question is the NIL’s impact on women’s collegiate athletics. Greater
market-justified expenditures already afford rewards to revenue-generating (primarily male)
sports teams. The apparent conflict between amateurism and NIL legislation potentially
jeopardizes the intent behind prior legislation meant to ensure equality, specifically Title IX
(Sorbe et al., 2022). Title IX, a legislative amendment signed into law on June 23, 1972, is the
cornerstone for gender equality within the American collegiate arena. It clearly states, “No
person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participating in, be the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance” (U.S. Department of Education, 2021, p. 2).
Title IX has done a lot to fulfill its intended purpose of establishing an equitable
collegiate sports landscape. Acosta and Carpenter’s (2014) longitudinal study examining the
impact of the legislation found that, before Title IX’s enactment, schools averaged 2.5 women’s
teams, and in 2014, schools averaged a record-high of 8.83 women’s teams; before the
34
legislation, there were just 16,000 female athletes, and today that number has grown to over
200,000 (p. 1.). Furthermore, Druckman et al.’s (2018) breakthrough survey of Division I
athletes found strong support for the spirit of Title IX. The author strongly believed further
redistribution of resources should be strongly considered. Finally, many studies support the
positive impact of Title IX on participation and coaching, explicitly naming the increased job
opportunities and broader opportunities for women’s participation in competition at a collegiate
level as the main positives gained from the legislation.
Alterations in the collegiate women’s athletics realm will occur due to changes in
amateur status. Money yields opportunity and influence, and NCAA athletics department
expenditures could diminish Title IX’s efficacy. Recent NIL-related legislation poses a
significant risk of rendering Title IX ineffective (Sorbe et al., 2022). If an athletic department
secures more significant endorsement compensation for one gender over the other, or if one
gender receives greater education about monetizing their NIL rights from an athletics
department, a violation of Title IX’s equal athletic benefit and opportunities standard could be
triggered (Jessop & Sabin, 2021). The introduction of the NIL blurs the line between amateur
and professional, creating confusion and turmoil regarding legislation meant to ensure equality
under the amateur umbrella.
Another perspective to consider is the possibility that the NIL will increase the visibility
of women’s intercollegiate sports entirely. Experts agree that the high social media followings of
women’s student-athletes demonstrate that intercollegiate women’s sports athletes could generate
meaningful incomes from their NIL rights (Jessop & Sabin, 2021). Many examples illustrate the
emerging opportunities for women’s college athletics to profit from endorsement. Paige Buecker,
a star women’s basketball player for the University of Connecticut, could earn upwards of $1
35
million this year, having recently secured a deal with Gatorade. The Cavender twins, Haley and
Hanna, once basketball standouts at Fresno State, transferred to the University of Miami and
recently announced their retirement from collegiate basketball—inked deals with multiple
companies, including Boost Mobile and Six Star Pro Nutrition. Olivia Dunn, a Louisiana State
University gymnast with over 1.3 million followers, could surpass $1 million by signing deals
with American Eagle and Plantfuel. This year, ESPN revealed that the 2023 Women’s Final Four
was its most viewed edition of the NCAA Division Women’s college basketball semifinal across
ESPN platforms in recorded history (Rasmussen, 2023). The event averaged 9.92 million
viewers and was the most streamed sporting event (women’s or men’s) to date on ESPN+
(Adgate, 2023). Collegiate women’s sports are finally breaking through to the American
consumer partly because of the exposure offered via NIL implementation.
From Student-Athletes to Business Partners
Now that the NIL has been established, examining how it affects recruitment strategy is
necessary. Today, student-athletes can develop followings and use social media to reach a
targeted audience and connect with the public. Therefore, recruitment efforts must now consider
that influencers with established brands are active recruitment targets, thus necessitating
assessing the impact of a business partnership (McCarthy, 2020). The reputation of institutional
brands (as well as future revenue opportunities through the NIL) is on the line, depending on
how they work with student-athletes; Experts project that colleges and universities providing the
most opportunity for their athletes in this regard will benefit during future recruiting cycles
(Liffreing, 2021). Whether by introducing licensing deals or partnering with influencer agencies,
schools are eager to show that they are helping their student-athletes obtain NIL deals, even if it
does not support them monetarily; success in college sports is a product of gathering talent and
36
ensuring the accomplishment of their brands (Liffreing, 2021). Colleges and universities are all
trying to find ways to make the new NIL laws work for them. “It’s a climactic change in the way
schools earn money off merchandising and other things they’ve done historically to earn money,”
says Jason A. Setchenan, a Florida attorney representing several professional athletes: “They
have to address the name, image, and likeness problem and they have to share in the revenues, or
they have to make student-athletes part of the process … it’s a learning curve” (Liffreing, 2021,
p. 4). Recruitment in the face of the NIL changes a lot for all parties involved; however,
recruiting during an age where money and freedom are introduced to student-athletes completely
alters the industry.
In today’s collegiate recruiting landscape, all athletic participants remain prospects due to
the advent of the transfer portal. The transfer portal permits each student-athlete participating in
the NCAA to act as a “free agent” of sorts. As a result, student-athletes can transfer schools each
year without any penalty threatening their eligibility.
Created by the NCAA 2018, the transfer portal has quickly become a key pillar of college
sports, a resource for athletes, a program-building tool for coaches, and a never-ending
source of intrigue for fans. A 2019 article on the NCAA’s website describes the transfer
portal as a “compliance tool to manage the transfer process from start to finish
systematically.” Put more simply, it’s a database. When an athlete decides they want to
explore transferring to another school, they must notify their current school's compliance
office. And the compliance office then has two business days to put that athlete’s name in
the portal. Student-athletes do have the choice of staying at their school if they are not
selected from the portal, though it’s rare … the portal is not accessible to the public, so
there is no way to check this figure in real-time. The window for transfer is sixty days for
37
each sport. The portal is not a shortcut for the rest of the recruiting process; it creates a
dynamic where recruitment becomes year-round (Schad, 2022, para 2).
Due to the introduction of the transfer portal, coaches now must re-recruit student-
athletes to stay at their given institutions. Although the program may seem like a dream come
true for student-athletes in terms of freedom, it can also be perceived from another perspective.
When student-athletes do not perform, are ineligible due to grades, or get caught in the
whirlwind of a coaching change, the transfer portal can be a means by which a coaching staff can
“clean house.”
Coach Deion Sanders, an NFL Hall of Famer and recent hire as head coach for the
University of Colorado, wasted no time ushering in a new era. He made room for new
recruits as soon as he was hired, telling the current team to hit the transfer portal as
quickly as possible. “We got a few positions already taken care of because I’m bringing
my luggage with me—and it’s Louis—[Vuitton] (Dator, 2022, para. 2).
The initial evaluation happens very quickly, but we also don’t want to pin ourselves in a
hole that … we’re going to take someone right then and there,” said Darrick Yray,
general manager of personnel at Florida State. The initial evaluation to ensure that it is
someone we’re going to recruit happens quickly, but the evaluation never stops from the
moment they set foot on campus. (Jeyarajah, 2023, para 12)
Today’s collegiate landscape is won by those tested by the best at the NCAA level. Therefore,
experience is a premium, and the transfer exemption allows programs to compile heavy transfer
classes while keeping their rosters balanced (Jeyarajah, 2023).
Non and lower-ranked college programs who have the donors to offer significant NIL funds
will now be able to compete with the top-ranked programs. … Additionally, the new rules
38
have evened out the balance of power between a player and the university. In the past,
coaches had all the power. Now players have an out without penalty, which has evened out
the leverage between coach/university. And it is giving college athletes with a future in
professional sports an early lesson in free agency. (Geisler, 2023, para 3)
The transfer portal is another catalyst for change within the collegiate sporting industry. It
creates a domain where the gathering of resources, in this case, talent, is of prime importance to
the livelihoods of each participant. The transfer portal’s impact on recruitment, accompanied by
the introduction of the NIL, shakes traditional means of doing business within the NCAA to the
core. This sudden introduction of compensation and freedom to the American student-athlete
offers a shock to an otherwise banal tradition where institutions held significant leverage over
student-athletes and their ability to make decisions in their best interest. Due to the advent of the
NIL, combined with the implementation of the transfer portal, student-athletes are evolving into
employees; consideration of the National Letter of Intent as a 1-year contract would not be a far-
fetched idea, as now student-athletes have the same rights as a professional “free agent” upon their
season’s completion.
Reviewing the literature on this topic offers a clear picture of the American collegiate
athletic forum’s past, why it has evolved in its direction, the industry’s contradictions, current
changes, and future considerations. Processing those factors and gaining further insight by
sharing this work’s theoretical framework serves as the next step in the organization of this study.
Theoretical Framework
This section of the study corroborates the theoretical framework with the data and
function of this dissertation. Here, the rationale for the connection of each chosen theory to the
39
attributes of this study occurs, whereby we denote the correlation between the study’s intention
and the approaches used as lenses used to gain a greater understanding of the phenomena.
Bandura’s social learning perspective studies the circumstances connecting a stimulus to
a response (Miller & Doddard, 1941). The essence of the idea rests in understanding and
predicting human behavior. Social learning theory subscribes to a model in which people serve
as agentic operators in their life course (Bandura, 1997). Knowledge structures representing
effective action strategies serve as guides for constructing behavior patterns; establishing these
structures materializes from styles of thinking and models of behavior, outcomes of exploratory
activities, verbal instruction, and innovative cognitive synthesis of acquired knowledge
(Bandura, 1999).
Self-efficacy, a concept defined by Bandura in 1977, refers to a person’s belief in their
ability to succeed in specific situations and is a prerequisite for any behavior change (Bandura,
2006). Individuals with high levels of self-efficacy express strong motivation, persist in the face
of numerous obstacles, and are more apt to accept innovative ideas (Bandura, 1997). Testing the
construct of self-efficacy’s ability to influence future behavior has occurred in various domains,
and consistent results are seen across many diverse areas of human functioning. For example,
within the social learning theory, self-efficacy predicts future behavior more than outcome
expectations (Eun, 2019; Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy beliefs affect the quality of human
functioning through cognitive, motivational, affective, and decisional processes. People’s views
of their efficacy influence whether they think pessimistically or optimistically and whether their
thoughts are self-enabling or self-debilitating; by these internal perceptions, people set the course
of their life paths and determine what they will eventually become (Bandura, 2002).
40
For this study, to understand how the NIL affects prospective student-athletes behavior
concerning recruitment, we are examining the impact of the stimulus, the NIL, on student-
athlete’s behavior regarding school choice. Based on ideas presented in Bandura’s theory of
social learning, we can assume that behaviors exhibited by student-athletes influencing their
choice of school will be a derivative of their perception of the stimulus, in this case, the NIL,
their current construction of knowledge, and each’s level of self-efficacy.
Piaget’s constructivist approach also framed the development of theory for this work
because the conception of the findings for this study occurred through sharing the Men’s
Community College student-athlete’s lived experiences. In terms of methods, constructivist
qualitative research studies typically emphasize participant observation and interviewing for data
generation as the researcher aims to understand phenomena from the perspective of those
experiencing it; The researcher’s understanding is co-constructed with that of the participants
through their mutual interaction within the research setting and dialogic interaction through
researcher-initiated data generation efforts such as interviewing (Given, 2008). For this study,
implementation of the constructivist approach occurred through mutual interaction and
interviewing. My active engagement as a researcher/coach within the lived experience of this
study’s three Men’s Community College basketball student-athletes validates the work’s
constructivist foundation because of our sustained mutual interaction within the research setting
and dialogic interaction.
Co-construction of my understanding of the topic as a researcher with the Men’s
Community College student-athletes occurred within a research setting. My dual responsibility
as a researcher and coach added to my understanding of the topic in question. Our interactions
not only involved inquiry on NIL implementation and recruitment but also involved improving
41
their knowledge of the game. Our conversations enhanced their comprehension of basketball
concerning fundamental concepts, both offensively and defensively, including individual skill
development, spacing, communication, cutting, timing, cohesion, and decision-making. In
addition, off-the-court discussions involved many topics pertaining to emotional intelligence,
flow-state, concentration, positive self-talk, poise, discipline, conflict resolution, effective
communication, decision-making, response to authority, mental health, and natural elements of
Bandura’s social learning theory.
Their contribution to my development was also significant. Their perspectives prompted
me to reevaluate personal values, self-reflect, and work to improve as a coach, leader, teacher,
friend, and father. Personal conclusions involve understanding that leading, teaching, and
coaching is relative to each team participant and that effective leadership is a shared experience.
Our relationships were not transactional, as I did not influence their playing time or practice
repetitions, nor could I offer monetary benefit. Instead, the forging of our interactions occurred
from their respect for my background as a player and person and, from my end, seeing my
reflection in them. I learned they would allow behavior correction if they trusted my competence
and felt their sense of self could flourish within a safe space. I was reminded that leading is
granted by constituents and success occurs by allowing each individual “self” of the community
room to thrive while ensuring that each member stays committed to the shared mission of the
collective group.
The sharing of ideas during my time as a coach to the three participants added to my
understanding of why the needs of prospective student-athletes were evolving. These interactions
allow me to understand the findings of this dissertation not only from a theoretical perspective
but also through the action of service.
42
Bandura’s social learning theory suggests that people are the protagonists of their own
stories. Similarly, Piaget’s idea of constructivism proposes that the construction of knowledge
occurs through active engagement in lived experience. Consequently, applying these theories in
examining this topic offers a unique reflection on participants’ perspectives regarding the
progression of recruitment in the collegiate sports industry after the introduction of NIL, as it
foregrounds the viewpoints of those individuals who are directly affected by the implementation
of NIL legislation. Recognition of the changing industrial collegiate sports landscape through the
lens of Bandura’s social learning theory while simultaneously building from the ground up
through implementing Piaget’s constructivist approach added depth to the study, whereby this
work can fill voids within the changing collegiate sports realm by providing commentary that
informs the entire community on the evolving needs of the collegiate prospect. See Figures 1 and
2.
Figure 1
Theoretical Framework A
Bandura's Social Learning
Theory
The NIL's Influence on school
choice for prospective student-
athletes.
Prospective Student-Athletes
P
a
i
g
e
t
'
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
v
i
s
t
T
h
e
o
r
y
T
h
e
N
I
L
'
s
I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
c
h
o
i
c
e
f
o
r
p
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
-
a
t
h
l
e
t
e
s
.
P
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
-
A
t
h
l
e
t
e
s
43
Figure 2
Theoretical Framework B
Social Media/Branding and Social Learning Theory
Now that student-athletes can monetize their name, image, and likeness for financial
benefit, it is imperative to examine the relationship between social media and the theoretical
framework used in this study: social learning theory. Today, digital images play a prominent role
in self-presentation, directly influencing the earning potential of prospective student-athletes
across the country (Hancock and Toma, 2009). Social learning theory explains how and why
individuals acquire and maintain behaviors by modeling, which involves observing, interpreting,
and adjusting their behavior in response to other observed behavior (Stefanone et al., 2018).
Furthermore, social learning theory proposes that human functioning is the product of reciprocal
44
determinism; in other words, the dynamic interplay of personal factors, behavior, and
environmental influences interact to shape human behavior (Bandura, 1986).
In marketing, endorsement plays a significant role in maintaining a company’s positive
reputation and meeting its business goals; social media influencers have established themselves
as the most cost-effective/efficient marketing option (Harrison, 2017). Social media influencers
can also showcase compelling outcomes regarding media coverage and consumer persuasion
(Booth and Matic, 2011). Celebrity endorsements are instrumental in raising brand awareness,
and social media influencers play a significant role in driving product engagement and brand
loyalty (TapInfluence, 2017). The proposal of social learning theory as a contextual foundation is
fundamental in understanding social media influencers, as they represent a novel type of
independent third-party endorser who can shape audience attitudes and decision-making
processes using social media (Lim et al., 2017).
The rise of social media platforms and the subsequent ability of athletes to brand
themselves quickly and effectively provide an opportunity to examine the NIL value of student-
athletes at the individual level (Kunkel et al., 2021). For example, former University of Alabama
quarterback Tua Tagovailoa could earn over $25,000 for each sponsored Instagram post he
uploads and advertises to his followers (Dosh, 2019). Comparatively, Tagovailoa had over
544,000 followers while he was at Alabama before being drafted, which is more than double the
combined followers of both James Tedesco (137,000) and Nathan Fyfe (162,000), who were
named as the best players in Australia’s professional National Rugby League and Australian
Football League in 2019 (Kunkel et al., 2021). To a large extent, the value of online
advertisements and sponsored posts depends on the number of social media followers possessed
by athletes, combined with the engagement attracted by their posts (Asdemir et al., 2012). The
45
power of social media is arguably more profound at the collegiate level; athletes generally do not
have access to widespread media coverage or marketing consultants and must instead rely on an
inherent brand value and more organic means of promotion (Guerin-Eagleman & Clavio, 2015).
Social media represents an essential medium athletes can use to generate income from
their brands (Geurin, 2017). As a result, advertisers are increasingly investing in influencer
marketing, which leverages individuals perceived favorably by a brand’s current or potential
customers to assist in the brand’s marketing activities (Stubb et al., 2019). According to Business
Insider Intelligence (2019), approximately $8 billion were spent within the influencer marketing
industry in 2019, projected to grow to $15 billion by 2022. This growth is underpinned by
perceptions that influencer marketing is effective, fast, targeted, and provides cost-benefits over
other marketing strategies (Evans et al., 2017).
Researchers have identified that athletes are famous for organizations to target for brand
endorsement opportunities (Carlson and Donovan, 2008) and acknowledge that social media
platforms allow athletes to build and monetize their brands (Geurin, 2017). The impact of social
learning theory regarding the modeling behaviors of consumers, combined with student-athletes’
potential to gain influence through their name, image, and likeness, creates a dynamic where NIL
legislation can benefit all parties involved. Consequently, understanding the relationship between
a student-athlete’s choice of school and NIL opportunities may allow schools to develop business
programs designed to attract top talent and clarify what prospective students are seeking from the
business aspect of an athletic department.
Conclusion
This section began by offering rich context on the history of the NCAA’s inception, the
formation and evolution of the NCAA, the background of foundational arguments concerning the
46
definition of “amateurism,” and details on the “scholarship.” The segment additionally shared
insight into the reality of the student-athlete, their recruitment, and evolution, along with the
introduction of the NIL to the sector. Contribution of commentary on gender, school choice, and
the NIL and Women’s Collegiate Sports, accompanied by the project’s theoretical framework and
explaining social media/branding’s relationship to social learning theory, allows this review of
the literature to contribute a robust body of information that serve as pillars upon which our
findings can rest. Chapter Three gives insight into the study’s research process and discusses the
conceptual framework, data collection, and analysis.
47
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter describes the study’s research process and offers insight into the data
collection strategy. The section will review the study’s aims, the philosophical backgrounds
underpinning the research, the variety of research, sampling considerations, the information
collection process, the data analysis process, and the study’s limitations. The chapter’s final
section also explores the researcher’s role concerning the type of study and assesses the study’s
validity and reliability.
Sample and Participants
The use of the purposive sampling technique was beneficial for this study. Purposive
sampling is a nonrandom technique in which the researcher solicits persons with specific
characteristics to participate in the study (Johnson & Christensen, 2017). Purposive sampling
assumes that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight, and they must
select a sample from which the most understanding can be learned (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
The participants were chosen precisely because of their unique experiences concerning the topic
(Chein, 1981). The logic and power of qualitative purposive sampling derive from its emphasis
on an in-depth understanding of specific cases; in these information-rich cases, one can learn a
great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry (Patton, 2015). For this
study, prospective men’s and women’s student-athletes from community college, high school,
and 4-year institutions, who have been recruited, are currently being recruited or will be recruited
in the near future, served as the sampling pool.
In purposive sampling, the adequate number of participants in the sample is determined
by informational considerations, those being the termination of the selection when no new
information is forthcoming from sampled units; thus, redundancy is the primary criterion for
48
deciding sample adequacy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Mason’s (2010) analysis of 560 Ph.D.
students who adopted a qualitative interview as their primary method revealed that qualitative
research’s most common sample size is between 15 and 50 participants, with 20 being the
average sample size in grounded theory studies. Consequently, given the type and design of the
study, I believe that the 12 members who participated in this study enabled me to invoke sound
judgments regarding the common tendencies materializing from the collected data. A 50/50 split
between male and female participants was sought to ensure balance, along with a diverse range
of candidates regarding class status. Conclusions were determined by reaching a level of
redundancy in response previously mentioned in this section.
For this study, solicitation of a mixture of high school, community college, and current 4-
year athletes from various sports occurred for participation. The choice to include student-
athletes at 4-year institutions is based on the recent uprise in school transfers due to the transfer
portal. In 2020, there was a significant rise in the percentage of transfers within NCAA Division
I Men’s Basketball: from 54% in 2019 to 63% in 2020 (NCAA Research, 2021). Women’s
basketball has also seen an uptick, and the 2022 transfer portal surpassed the 2021 season, with
1,284 Division I participants choosing to switch institutions compared to 1,197 from the previous
season (Jennings, 2022). Athletes were selected from various public and private high schools and
Division I and Community College institutions.
Instrumentation
A combination of closed and open-ended questions were used to explore participants’
different frames of thought, and follow-up inquiries encouraged reflection and elaboration. The
questions were developed by examining the literature and were shaped around circumstances
likely influencing each participant’s perspective on the subject in question. The original
49
interview schedule incorporated 20 written questions (see Appendix A) exploring various aspects
of the subject. In addition, the pilot testing of the questions through mock interviews with two
researchers ensured clarity and an all-encompassing, comprehensive nature.
Each participant’s interview occurred once in a mutually agreed-upon setting, either in
person, by phone, or via Zoom. Interviews were recorded using voice typing software. To
protect privacy, the conduction of the interviews was confidential, and participants’ names were
excluded. Prospects under 18 who chose to participate in the study needed permission from
parents or guardians (see Appendix B). Each interview’s tone was informal and conversational,
creating an environment conducive to the free flow of thoughts and ideas. Each interview lasted
approximately 30–45 minutes, allowing for sharing of participant perspectives without fatigue or
repetitiveness.
This study took an inductive approach to its development of theory based on the data
collected. The inductive process involves building broad themes into a generalized theory
(Punch, 2005). First, as a researcher, I gathered detailed participant information and categorized
the data. Then, themes were developed into broad patterns, by which theory induction came to
fruition (Creswell, 2014).
This study aimed to be “illuminative” by making key behaviors or attitudes in each
context visible for contemplation (Hart, 1998). Implementation of the qualitative research
approach proved beneficial during this study because of the need to understand the construction
of meaning behind the decision-making process of potential student-athletes concerning the NIL
policy. Qualitative research aims to understand how people make sense of their lives, delineate
the process of meaning-making, and describe how people interpret what they experience
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, the qualitative nature of the study offered an opportunity
50
to examine the prospect’s perspective, thereby developing a theoretical premise based solely on
the participants’ experiences.
Conceptual Framework
Social learning theory rests on the basic tenet that human behavior is learned and
acquired rather than innate (Miller & Doddard, 1941). More specifically, Miller and Doddard
(1941) define social learning theory as the study of circumstances that connect a stimulus to a
response; the response is thus the behavior sought to be understood. In this case, this study aims
to comprehend how monetary benefit alters the recruitment dynamic.
The institution’s perspective regarding this new change in the collegiate sports realm is
evolving significantly. Athletic departments’ publicity, marketing, and student-athletes have been
intertwined with NIL opportunities. In addition, institutions now offer student-athletes general
education programs regarding branding, financial literacy, and regulatory framework for NIL
contracts and compensation (O’Brien, 2021). Although student-athletes will face an abundance
of money-making NIL opportunities, they will also face a multitude of challenges along the way;
college athletics should step in now to support student-athletes by establishing content creation
teams, policies intended to offer future guidance, along with regulations using permissive and
specific language (McCarthy, 2020).
The athlete’s perspective has also been altered, as top-tier recruits are now reconsidering
whether college is viable. The National Basketball Association’s (NBA) G League, formerly the
NBA Development League or NBA D-League, is the NBA’s official minor league, preparing
players, coaches, officials, trainers, and front office staff for the NBA while acting as the league’s
research and development laboratory; NBA G League Ignite is a team of NBA Draft prospects
operated by the G League. Coached by Jason Hart, the team is dedicated to developing top young
51
players through a program focused on NBA Draft readiness and growth of professional life
skills. NBA G League Ignite is also comprised of NBA and NBA G League veterans to aid in
developing the prospects highlighting the inaugural G League Ignite roster (Frequently Asked
Questions, n.d.) In addition, the age limit of allowing 18-year-olds to play, who are fresh out of
high school, provides an opportunity for these young players to show that they belong in the
NBA; Players are receiving recognition from the G League regarding their playing ability while
also getting paid. (Scott, 2021).
Another option for young stars other than the NBA is the upstart league Overtime Elite
(OTE). OTE is an Atlanta-based basketball league billed as offering “the world’s most talented
young basketball players a better pathway to becoming professional athletes” (Suggs, 2022, para.
7). The league recruits high school juniors and seniors and “post-grad” players up to the age of
20 years old. (Suggs, 2022). Players are guaranteed a minimum salary of $100,000, plus bonuses
and equity shares in OTE, a company worth more than $250 million; they can make additional
cash through branding deals, prizes, and trading cards (Suggs, 2022). Additionally, players—
who live and practice together in Overtime Elite’s glistening 103,000-square-foot facility in the
heart of Atlanta—will receive an extra $10,000 if they are part of the league’s top team come to
the end of the season. If players don’t earn a professional contract, the league will grant them an
additional $100,000 to attend the school of their choice (Suggs, 2023).
Current NBA star LaMelo Ball opted to leave high school and skip college in favor of
going overseas- first to Lithuania and then to Australia; His unorthodox path, which evaded
playing for a “blue blood” college basketball program like his brother Lonzo Ball at UCLA, is
one that ultimately paid off, as LaMelo has blossomed into one of the bright young superstars of
the NBA (Gleeson, 2021). The NBA and the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA)
52
are currently negotiating to alter their expiring collective bargaining agreement; one of the topics
up for discussion is the minimum age limit to enter the NBA draft. From the players’ union
perspective, lowering the draft eligibility age from 19 to 18 would bring more young players in
to develop in the league and take away roster spots from veterans (and the union is made up of
those veterans, not undrafted players); As for the teams, plenty of GMs would prefer an extra
year to evaluate players, especially with them going up against better competition in college/G-
League/Overtime Elite/overseas (Helin, 2023).
In 2016, the NCAA altered its policy on players entering the NBA draft. Before, players
who entered their names in the draft would simultaneously offer their collegiate eligibility. Now,
student-athletes who enter the draft can participate in the combine and work out with one NBA
team before choosing whether they want to withdraw their name; if they were to withdraw, their
eligibility would remain intact; Additionally, first-year students have ten days after the combine
to remove their name from the pool of draft-eligible players, participants now retain their college
eligibility even if they declare themselves for the NBA draft in more than 1 year (Zucker, 2016).
Jalen Duren—a 6’10”, 230-pound power forward who starred for the University of
Memphis and was the 13th pick in the 2022 NBA Draft—states, “College has always been a
main option … that whole aspect of the NIL makes it an even stronger option though” (Jordan,
2021, para 16). The timing of the NIL approval is an understandably strategic move as more
student-athletes legitimately entertain professional options after high school: last year, five high
school players opted for the NBA G-League rather than suit up for college, while this year, three
high school players have already committed to the G-League and six elite juniors have
committed to OTE (Jordan, 2021). “I feel like the smart thing to do is keep all of your options
open these days,” says MJ Rice, a consensus top-15 player in the 2022 class: “It’s not like it was
53
five years ago when no one thought about anything but college. But the NIL rights are big. Most
players lean towards college a little anyway, so to have this is big for college basketball” (Jordan,
2021, para 26). Most recently, A.J. Johnson, (6-ft 5-in guard, from Southern California
Academy), who currently ranked No. 5 at his position nationally and 3rd in the state of
California, has de-committed from the University of Texas and instead will be playing
professionally overseas with the Illawarra Hawks of the Australian National Basketball League
(Weaver, 2023). Johnson will aim to take a similar path to the NBA as LaMelo Ball, who played
one season in the Australian league before going No. 3 overall to the Charlotte Hornets in 2020
(Weaver, 2023). Johnson stated that the more improvised free-flowing nature of the pro game
better suits his style of play, “The college environment is a bit more controlled … not much
about playing off feel and freedom. … I feel like I thrive in more of an up-and-down system.”
(Weaver, 2023, para. 4) From a social learning perspective, examining the impact of the NIL on
NCAA recruitment involves comprehension of the options student-athletes have at their disposal.
Not only must NCAA coaches compete against each other, they now are competing with upstart
leagues nationally and international leagues alike.
Investigating this problem through the principles of social learning theory prompts
researchers to comprehend the circumstances that influence the decision-making process of
prospective collegiate athletes. Understanding the prospects’ response concerning the stimulus
provided by the implementation of the NIL thus conceptually frames the crux of this study. This
dissertation aims to ascertain the motives behind the athletes’ behaviors, determine how to better
respond to their needs, and clarify the changing values held by collegiate prospects. See Figure 3.
54
Figure 3
Conceptual Framework
Data Collection
The data collection took place through semi-structured interviews that I conducted with
participants at their preferred times. The discussion of the semi-structured interview took the
form of a mixture of structured questions. Neither the exact wording nor the order of the
questions was determined ahead of time, allowing me to respond to the respondent’s worldview
without constraint and explore alternate ideas on the topic offered by the participant (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). Compared with the structured interview, the semi-structured interview provides
greater scope for discussion, learning, and the gathering of participants’ opinions and views,
thereby offering an ample opportunity to “understand the significance of human experiences as
described from the actor’s perspective” (Minichiello et al., 2008, p. 318). The semi-structured
Name, Image and
likeness (NIL)
The NIL's influence on
school choice for
prospective student-
athletes.
Introduction of student-
athletes as business
partners.
55
interview process was the primary data-gathering approach used in this study, a technique that is
particularly good at enabling the researcher to learn, firsthand, about people’s perspectives on the
subject chosen as the project focus (Hughes & Davies, 2007). With the semi-structured interview,
the interviewer has a series of questions that comprise the general schedule of the discussion;
however, the researcher can alternate the sequences of the questions, offering them the
opportunity to further investigate significant responses (Bryman, 2001; Taylor & Bogdan, 1984).
Probing questions were incorporated within the semi-structured interview dynamic; they were
used as needed and implemented conversationally to ensure that the discussion was natural and
conversational so the participants could be spontaneous and free in their responses.
Solicitation of data from underage participants included a consent form to ensure that
they and their parents were fully informed and to provide documentation of the
subject’s voluntary agreement to participate. The consent decree can be found in Appendix B at
the end of this dissertation.
Data Analysis
After establishing that prospects/student-athletes and brands share the same interests and
are legally allowed to develop mutually beneficial business relationships, examining the
ramifications of changes within the recruitment dynamic is now possible. Therefore, the function
of this study is to answer three specific questions:
• What influence does the implementation of the NIL have on the values of prospective
student-athletes concerning their choice of an institution?
• How has the NIL changed the recruitment dynamic?
• How prepared are potential collegiate student-athletes to take advantage of these new
opportunities?
56
The pertinence of the research inquiry to the collegiate sports industry is without
question, as the change has permanently altered the landscape and has prompted a period of
uncertainty. Experts predict that colleges and universities that provide the most NIL opportunities
for their athletes will benefit in future recruiting cycles, whether by introducing licensing deals
or partnering with influencer agencies. Even sports agents are feeling the pressure, as NIL
developments have created a new level of ambiguity. President of Daemen College in New York,
Gary Olson, indicated his uncertainty regarding the policy: “When the new NCAA guidelines are
incorporated, it will be difficult to manage the grey areas” (McCarthy, 2020, p. 2). The rules
from these bodies have generally failed to instruct agents on how to represent student-athletes
lawfully (LaRose & Sawchak, 2021). Understanding shared values held by new-aged prospects
thus offers some stability to an otherwise unsettled domain. This study hopes to clarify the
driving force behind prospects’ decision-making process and obtain focused conclusions as to
how their needs can be met.
Due to the nature of the study of understanding the impact of the NIL legislation on
student-athlete’s decision-making, strategic implementation of the grounded theory research
methodology approach proved most effective. The overall purpose of the process is to identify
patterns in the data and arrange these patterns in relation to each other to build a grounded theory
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Grounded theory is a specific research methodology in which the
investigator serves as the primary instrument of data collection; the analysis assumes an
inductive stance to derive meaning, and the result is a theory that emerges from or is “grounded”
in the data (Glasser & Strauss, 1967). The theory developed from the grounded approach is
usually substantive rather than formal, having specificity and usefulness in addressing questions
about a process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Therefore, grounded research theory offers the best
57
opportunity to ensure that the study has a firm foundation in the reality of the participants,
thereby establishing a meaningful and functional body of work.
This study used the cross-sectional method to gather data because it is the most effective
tool to ensure that the purpose of the study (i.e., understanding the impact of the NIL on
prospective student athletes’ college decisions) comes to fruition. In a cross-sectional study, the
researcher observes a (representative) sample drawn from a population at a specific point in time,
allowing the description of the outcome and its association with the cause in a well-defined
population at a given time (Bangdiwala, 2019). In addition, the cross-sectional design is of value
when studying underlying processes that have already occurred. The learning that happens is the
system’s final state, whereby individuals who strongly consider perceptions tend to value
individual outcomes (Spector, 2019). Therefore, implementing the cross-sectional study design
offers the most effective means for understanding the changes in student-athlete’s perspectives
regarding school choice that result from the NIL policy, as it allows the participants’ ideas to be
gathered, processed, and understood in a robust and all-encompassing fashion.
Summary
In summary, strategic implementation examining how the NIL impacts the decision-
making considerations of potential collegiate student-athletes attempted to certify the finding’s
validity. This dissertation used Bandura’s social learning theory and implemented Piaget’s
constructivist perspective to create a qualitative body of work that inductively builds a grounded
theory in a cross-sectional manner. Data gathering, processing, and presentation took place using
purposive sampling, semi-structured interviews, and acknowledgment of the limiting factors
mentioned curbs the possibility of the study’s lack of validity in other contexts. Applying these
58
methods also offered the most significant opportunity for the study’s transferability while
contributing to a complete and robust examination of the topic.
59
Chapter Four: Results
This section begins by describing those who participated in the study and presents data
gathered from the research. Next, each research question is individually listed and accompanied
by commentary from the project’s contributors. Finally, the section ends with a comprehensive
summary encompassing the data gathered from the research.
Participants
This section describes the participant population and qualitative data gathered from
inquiry in answering the listed research questions. The study population was prospective student-
athletes from high school, Community College, or participating in athletics at a 4-year
institution. All but one participant was currently competing in California. In total, 12 participants
participated in the study (50% male and 50% female). The ages of participants were distributed
from teenagers through their mid-twenties, most were African American, and other races
included Hispanic and Asian. Of the men who participated, one played at the Division 1 level,
three were currently on Community College rosters, and two were currently student-athletes at
the high school level. Of the women, two Division 1 athletes participated, two Community
College athletes, and two high school athletes participated in the study. Five of the men were
basketball players, and one was a high school baseball player. In addition, the women who
participated played various sports, including soccer, basketball, tennis, softball, volleyball, and
track and field. In terms of the level of education, the men had one collegiate senior, three
collegiate sophomores, and two high school seniors.
On the female side, one collegiate senior, one collegiate freshman at a 4-year institution,
one Community College sophomore, two high school sophomores, and one high school junior
participated. The interviews were conducted in person, via Zoom, and by telephone. Four of the
60
six males who participated in the discussion occurred in person and two via Zoom. Of the
women who participated, three were conducted by Zoom, and three were conducted by
telephone. Each participant was fully aware that their inclusion in the study would be anonymous
and that there would be no offer of compensation.
Research Question 1: Results/Discussion
Our first research question asks, “How does the implementation of NIL legislation
impact, if at all, the school decision-making process for potential collegiate student-
athletes?” The question aimed to understand the participant’s perspective based on the changing
dynamic. The answer covered a wide array of perspectives, reflecting insights from participants
that were both thoughtful and perceptive. What can be gathered from the data is that while
monetary benefit drastically alters the landscape of collegiate sports, it does not entirely diminish
each athlete’s competitive drive or the need for integrity and positive working relationships with
those in the sports program.
I want to go someplace where I feel like it is not all about the money ... I never grew up
making decisions based on who is giving the most money. It was always ... you go
somewhere that makes you feel comfortable, where people need you and want you to
play. You may go there, get paid much money, and be the fourth person coming off the
bench. I want to play. (Men’s Community College Student-Athlete, Sophomore)
Integrity and fit were major characteristics repeatedly mentioned during conversations
concerning the recruitment dynamic from the participant’s perspective. During her interview, a
Women’s collegiate basketball sophomore stated, “Realness and loyalty matter most … if you
can show me, I can trust you as a coach and you believe in me, that is what matters.” One of our
interviewees, a boys’ basketball player, offered their insight by stating, “I want to play at a school
61
that wants me for me ... A school that will be truthful. I want to play for a coach that’s going to
be real.” A boy’s senior high school baseball player added, “What matters most? I think fit. If
you really like the coaches and campus area. How much money is a factor, but if you are going
to play or not, that’s the big one.” Another participant, a Girl’s High School Sophomore
V olleyball student-athletes, shares, “For me, it’s about relationships. I want them to actually care
about me as a person. I want to be on a good team where I fit, so I can perform.” The echoing of
being able to “fit” into the style of play remained consistent throughout each interview:
At the end of the day, you still have to make decisions based on the system and the style
of the play and where you will be best able to succeed. Because I feel like businesses and
entrepreneurs want to deal with people who are winning people. You have to go to a place
where they not only develop you to be the best you can be but also put you in a position
to showcase everything you can do. (Men’s Collegiate Basketball, Senior)
While acknowledging factors other than monetary benefit was consistent for participants, they
were honest about the allure of compensatory incentives. For example, our boy’s senior high
school baseball player offered his thoughts by stating, “Student-athletes should be paid, because
of how much money the schools make … we should be given some compensation for what we
do … schools make a lot of money.” Another participant, a girl’s high school freshman, track and
field star, says, “I don’t think it would really influence my school selection, depending on the
deal, I guess.” The restating of the sentiment continued consistently, here participants offered
their thoughts by stating:
I see myself making money off the NIL, to be honest. I think it’s just based off how hard I
work and how good I want to be. It depends on me. So far, I gotta keep working hard. I
62
want to get deals, but it all starts with what I do right now when nobody sees it. (Boys
High School Basketball, Freshman)
I think it’s changing people’s opinions of what they can do. … Yes, I do feel we deserve
to be paid, I see myself signing to a lot of brands and doing a lot of promoting for
different ones … but what matters most to me is coaching and playstyle. (Men’s
Community College Basketball, Sophomore)
As a student-athlete, you have so much responsibility … at the end of the day, you have
to be good at your sport, and then it’ll (NIL opportunities) just come to you. In general, I
think that athletes are just like professional athletes and are going to want to go where
they get paid the most. It’s time that we kind of collect our check, and schools are going
to have to step it up. … It’s like a job. … I consider myself a professional athlete already.
(Women’s Collegiate Soccer Student-Athlete, Sophomore)
The most important aspect of that decision would be playing, but I would also have to say
my relationship with the coaching staff. … I want to be able to trust my coaches, not only
to help me be the best I can be in sports but also trust that they will put me in position to
be the best person I can be. (Men’s Collegiate Basketball, Senior)
Participants offered clear-cut responses to the first research question of this study. Based
on the gathered data, current and prospective student-athletes felt deserving of the opportunity to
earn income. However, most prospects noted the importance of relationships between themselves
and the coaching staff, integrity, the chance to contribute athletically, and how they fit into the
program’s style of play as equally significant influences on recruitment decisions.
63
Research Question 2: Results/Discussion
Our second research question, “How has the NIL impacted the recruitment dynamic?”
included differences involving gender perspective and differentiation based on the type of sport
played. Responses shed light on concerns regarding women’s collegiate sports and types of
opportunities for athletes competing in sports other than basketball and football.
I think there are differences concerning what sport you play and what gender you are. I
feel like women’s sports have some catching up to do. ... The game changer right now is
on the male side, specifically football and basketball. (Women’s Collegiate Soccer,
Sophomore)
The NIL is not a topic that is heavily discussed in regard to tennis recruitment, but when
it is brought up, it is more of a fun fact ... things haven’t changed much for tennis players,
like if it were for football, it would be discussed heavier because of their access to
companies. ... As a returner, I am expected to help to recruit. For us, the NIL is more of a
dinner table discussion. More out of curiosity about what access a prospect may have by
attending our school. I am the one reassuring a prospect that, yes, if you come here, you
will be contacted by someone regarding NIL opportunities. (Women’s Collegiate Tennis,
Senior)
On the men’s side, the concept of the NIL and its impact on recruitment was more of a financial
issue for participants.
I think it has turned recruiting upside down, especially for younger kids and incoming
first-year students. I feel like recruiters and coaches know that many athletes come from
lower-income areas, single-parent homes, or low socio-economical neighborhoods ...
many kids have begun to base their decisions off that [economic opportunities] rather
64
than knowing the system of the program or the type of environment the program
offers. (Men’s Collegiate Basketball, Senior)
NIL has changed college recruiting in a huge way, I notice a lot of people committing to
schools because of the money Black Colleges seem to be offering money these days, and
more people are considering Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
because of the money. (Men’s Basketball Community College, Sophomore)
For the most part, participants were uniform in their evolving expectation that coaches be
knowledgeable and willing to share insight on the NIL.
I expect the college recruiter to be an expert in the small particulars of the NIL, especially
if they are offering me a scholarship. They should be expected to know that stuff, just like
I am expected to know how to play basketball. (Boy’s High School Basketball,
Sophomore)
Yes, I do expect the recruiter or coach to be an expert in the NIL, especially if they are
recruiting me. NIL is important these days, I want to be somewhere where they are able
to explain it to us, so we can take advantage. (Men’s Basketball Community College,
Sophomore)
The expectation that coaches be able to share information concerning the NIL was consistent
throughout the study; here, our Women’s sophomore soccer student-athlete states, “Should
coaches address and share knowledge of the NIL during the recruiting process? Yes, they
definitely should.” The thought was repeated by our participants, regardless of gender or sport. A
Girl’s High School Junior Softball student-athlete states, “Yes, college recruiters should address
the NIL during the recruitment process … because certain students may really be open to doing
that … the coaches should be able to explain it completely.” The same rang true for our boy’s
65
high school baseball player, “Yes, they should be experts. They are the ones offering it … so I
think it’s important for them to know.” Here, another participant reiterated the thought, “Coaches
should address the NIL … to show the amount of access to the network the school has and also
the support that could be potentially provided.” Here, another student-athlete rehashes the idea
but adds the influence he feels the NIL will have on recruiting future student-athletes, while a
separate participant offers his thoughts on why coaches need to understand the policy:
Yes, I would expect them to be an expert. If someone is capable of making money off
their NIL, then yes, I would expect them to be an expert. They should want us to make
money off NIL; it probably helps them bring in more players. (Men’s Community
College Basketball, Sophomore)
Yes, I expect the coaches to be experts in the small intricacies of the NIL. … I want him
to know what he’s talking about and be able to make sure I’m not going to be ineligible
for the season, and I’ve like signed my name over to something that I don’t know, or he
may not know as well. (Men’s Community College Basketball, Sophomore)
In many ways, the NIL impacts the recruitment of prospective collegiate student-athletes.
According to our participants, the impactive strength of the NIL on collegiate recruitment is
significant and will continue to grow as a determining factor. Introducing monetary benefits may
coerce student-athletes to choose more non-traditional paths during their years of athletic
eligibility. Additionally, several prospects share the expectation that recruiters understand,
mention, and discuss the legislation. While the NIL does not ultimately influence their decision
on which school to attend, it does matter, and prospects expect the discussion of NIL from
institutional representatives to be transparent and thorough.
66
Research Question 3: Results/Discussion
Our final question assesses the preparation of potential collegiate student-athletes to take
advantage of NIL opportunities by questioning their understanding of the policy. When
asked “how prepared prospective collegiate student-athletes are to take advantage of new NIL
opportunities,” all our participants expressed a lack of understanding concerning the legislation.
Most participants responded similarly when asked about their knowledge; our Women’s
collegiate tennis student-athlete shared her insight by offering, “My knowledge of the NIL law? I
would say I know a bit.” Another participant shared a similar sentiment: “I would rate my
understanding, probably somewhat.” The uncertainty emerged in other statements offered by
participants on the subject: “I don’t know much about it.” “I just know we get paid, that’s it.” “I
know what it is, but I don’t know the full ends and out of it.” “Knowledge? My knowledge is
ok.” The lack of understanding could be due to the newness of the legislation, and thoughts on
that topic are offered here:
It has only been about a year, and I think it is still fresh, and I think there is still a lot of a
grey area that has not been discussed that will eventually be discussed. But right now ... I
do not think anybody, including myself, has complete knowledge of the NIL. (Men’s
Collegiate Basketball, Senior)
In terms of preparation, participants were not very aware of how to best use it to their advantage
for brand establishment or monetary benefit. Two of our participants offered a more detailed take
on the topic of preparation, stating:
Some may feel like they have to grow their social media presence ... the number of
followers you have directly impacts the type of deal you receive. For example, let’s say I
was TikTok famous, but I sucked at soccer. I would still get a deal regardless ... because
67
more people watch social media than actually watch the game. But I don’t want to be the
best dancer, and I don’t want to start a Twitter or TikTok. It is very time-consuming, and
you can get stuck by continuing to chase. As a student-athlete, you have so much
responsibility; at the end of the day, you have to be good at your sport. ... It is very easy
to get sidetracked in that world of wanting more. (Women’s Collegiate Soccer,
Sophomore)
I feel like businesses and entrepreneurs want to deal with people who are winning, people
who are in the spotlight. … I feel like if you make a decision, be solely based on
potentially what you can make or social media and not the system, that’ll you’ll not
develop you to be the best that you can be. (Men’s Collegiate Basketball, Senior)
Based on the answers provided by our participants regarding their preparation to take
advantage of NIL opportunities, this study found them in need of more information. For
example, some participants felt that the effort it takes to build a strong media presence would
take away from their athletic development. While social media and brand building are critical to
the student-athlete’s monetary success, based on the evidence collected in this study, it does not
take away from their understanding that skill-building, physical preparation, and winning are all
needed to thrive in the NIL era.
In accordance with the third research question, inquiring about the participant’s readiness
to take advantage of NIL opportunities, they seemed attentive to the correlation between NIL and
social media and offered some interesting insights on the subtopic.
The NIL and social media are together; they go hand in hand … they are asking you to
post on your social media ... it’s like a commercial. … It has to do with the generational
68
shift; most consumers are now usually shopping online or scrolling through TikTok.
(Women’s Collegiate Tennis, Senior)
Social media is time-consuming. I don’t want to start a Twitter, I don’t want to start a
TikTok, I don’t want to be the best dancer and have to come up with some extravagant
community engagement idea. I’d rather just do what I am interested in rather than do
things simply to boost my social media presence; it interferes with who you are… at the
end of the day, you have to be good at your sport and then it’ll just come to you, but it’s
very easy to get sidetracked. (Women’s Collegiate Soccer, Sophomore)
I believe they relate to us because they know most students are on social media, and
everyone is on social media … they go hand in hand because they know that for our
generation, it’s a big part of our lifestyle. (Girl’s High School Softball, Junior)
Social media and NIL relate because if you have a strong fanbase … it can lead to a deal.
If someone sees your popularity … or even how you approach and carry yourself every
day on the internet, someone may want to work with you and possibly make a deal with
you. (Boy’s High School Basketball, Sophomore)
Social media and NIL go hand in hand. Now in the age of technology, a lot of these
businesses are aware that student-athletes are on social media. It’s one of the main ways
they communicate with us and reach out. (Men’s Collegiate Basketball, Senior)
NIL preparation was also assessed by inquiring about our participant’s understanding of
branding; Here, we get an idea of their thoughts on the subject.
Branding is the way you want people to perceive you, as well as the way you want to
make a name for yourself … what you portray on social media shows people your
abilities and the ways you carry yourself. (Women’s Collegiate Tennis, Senior)
69
I don’t have much understanding of branding; that’s why I signed to an agent. I am open
to any summit events and have recently returned from one this summer and it talked
about NIL, so I am open to educational opportunities. (Women’s Collegiate Soccer,
Sophomore)
I think branding is important. … It’s the public image. … It’s how people see you. I think
somebody that’s been in the spotlight for a long time, that has a built-up brand, will
already have more of an opportunity to get money out of the NIL deal than somebody
that’s just as good but hasn’t had that spotlight for as long. (Boy’s High School Baseball,
Senior)
Data gathered from this research expressed that while student-athletes understand the
power of social media, an understanding of branding needs to be improved, a finding supported
by the literature. For example, Hodge and Walker (2015) discovered that professional golfers
acknowledged the importance of strong personal branding skills but perceived several challenges
to building an effective personal brand, including knowledge, time, and support. Likewise,
Geurin (2017) found that elite female athletes used social media to interact with fans but
implemented no strategy concerning personal branding. Both studies share common findings
related to this dissertation and find that athletes need more understanding regarding
comprehension of personal branding (Park et al., 2020).
Findings from this study suggest that student-athletes feel deserving of compensation but
still wish to be in situations that foster their individual growth, both in their respective sports and
personal development. Participants also acknowledge that NIL’s success coincides with their
athletic success. They were found to know the power of social media as the medium to make NIL
deals happen but currently need understanding concerning NIL legislation and branding
70
strategies that will ensure they can take full advantage of opportunities during the NIL era. As the
American student-athlete evolves and their understanding of sports business practice becomes
more refined, the collegiate sports industry will incur significant changes. As such, amateur
athletics, their participants, partners, and industry governance are due for an upheaval. Historic
principles that confined parameters of the sector in the past will eventually give rise to new
strategies ensuring the realization of the interests of athletic participants.
71
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, Conclusions
This research has aimed to share the perspective of student-athletes evolving attitudes and
actions concerning collegiate athletic recruitment. It is central to qualitative research to discover
how individuals interpret their experiences and articulate that process. This study has thus aimed
to determine the degree to which NIL law influences the college choices of prospective student-
athletes to understand further how financial incentive affects the recruiting process by asking
three specific questions:
1. How does the implementation of NIL legislation impact, if at all, the school decision-
making process for potential collegiate student-athletes?
2. From the student-athlete’s perspective, how has the NIL changed the recruitment
dynamic?
3. How prepared are potential collegiate athletes to take advantage of these new
opportunities?
Findings
The study participants were able to answer each of the listed research questions in detail
and offer insight into their perspectives. Our findings discovered that while the NIL legislation
impacted the decision-making process for potential student-athletes, it was not the only
determining factor for the prospect’s choice. When discussing how the NIL has changed the
recruitment dynamic, findings proved the student-athletes still value aspects of the process that
promote their personal growth and well-being; however, they have new expectations concerning
college recruiters and lack understanding of NIL particulars concerning the legislation itself and
branding practices.
72
Many participants expected coaches and recruiters to have some knowledge of NIL
policy and communicate effectively on the topic. Findings from this study corroborated previous
literature stating that coaches should explain what to expect, compliance issues, and the types of
resources needed concerning the NIL (McCarthy, 2020). The alteration in expectation from the
prospect denotes a significant change within the industrial norms.
Additionally, prospects were keenly aware of the power of social media, its relationship
to NIL opportunities, and the recruitment dynamic, another fact that supports findings from the
literature. Student-athletes will be financially incentivized to build their online presence,
establish a personal brand, and learn how best to market themselves through social media and
other channels (Kunkel et al., 2021). At the same time, research has thus far found a need for
more strategies regarding implementing branding strategy. Opportunities for monetization and
the advent of new platforms necessitate that athletes spend more time learning how to get results
from the medium (Geurin, 2017). From the interviews, prospects realize that their recruitment
should involve not only the acknowledgment of their athletic prowess in their individual sport
but also NIL particulars and how to brand their public persona.
Schools that embrace student-athlete’s concerns and support them through their transition
from “amateurs” to “partners” stand to benefit significantly in the realm of recruitment.
Compensatory benefits will lead athletic departments to seek competitive recruiting advantages
by offering the most significant access to endorsement contracts for student-athletes and
educating potential recruits on what their program can do to help them maximize the value of the
NIL, thus starting a new battle in the next decade of recruiting in college sports (Thompson,
2022). Findings from this study convey the prospect’s perspective and effectively disclose the
impact of NIL on their recruitment, thereby establishing foundational pillars by which the new
73
age collegiate sports recruitment can stand firm during this emergence of a new era within the
industry.
Implications for Practice
The redefining of the American student-athlete is in its infancy stages, and this study
serves as a glance into their evolving wants and needs. As student-athletes further realize their
value within the paradigm, institutions/schools begin to adjust to address student-athlete needs,
and businesses gain new partnerships, it is crucial to realize the ethical ramifications involved
within the dynamic in practice and the responsibility that comes with growth.
Student-athletes, while still considered amateur, will be put under more scrutiny and be
held to a higher standard due to the influx of money. Institutional values concerning ethics in the
sporting space will be of utmost importance; how schools manage injuries, eligibility, and
maintain healthy relationships with student-athletes is of significant concern. It is inherent that
athletes inform themselves to ensure their business acumen and prepare themselves physically,
mentally, and emotionally for the journey while embracing their newfound freedom.
The practice of the coach’s position has also evolved. The expectation of understanding
and discussing NIL particulars to arguably the most educated, informed, business-minded
constituent of American prospects ever to be labeled “amateurs” is now an expectation. Coaches
will need to embrace ideals concerning salesmanship now more than ever to bring in new talent
and retain student-athletes within their respective programs.
The role of business within the industry has also evolved, as they now have an
opportunity to secure and market athletic representatives of scholastic institutions to assist them
in promoting their goods and services. Moreover, the business sector will be more prominent in
securing talent because offering their “sponsorship packages” will strongly influence the market.
74
In practice, athletic programs and business interests will eventually work together to determine
the best course of action to recruit and retain talent. One such company, NIL Partners, which
brings former professional athletes, entrepreneurs, professors, and social media influencers
together to help navigate the NIL landscape, recently announced the launch of its online learning
module system (LMS) platform (NIL Partners, 2022). NIL Partners has worked in conjunction
with several university athletic departments to create a program that will benefit recruiting by
better preparing prospects for the marketplace; The software consists of modules providing
financial literacy, social media savvy, and mental health awareness for student-athletes purposed
to help them navigate the changing landscape (NIL Partners, 2022). Steven Simmons, Chief
Operating Officer of NIL Partners, said,
We recognize the NIL world can be a bit of a Pandora’s Box for student-athletes. We
have seen how many professional athletes can struggle with poor financial decisions,
career-damaging social media blunders, or have struggled with mental health issues. By
being able to address these issues for the rising athletes proactively, we can provide
skillsets and a knowledge base that can take them through their college careers and
beyond, whether that journey is to a professional sport or the corporate world. (NIL
Partners, 2022, para. 5).
Influencer agencies are building out their capacities to cater to the new demands; marketing firm
Viral Nation, which works with brands including Anheuser-Busch in Bev’s Bud Light, Aston
Martin, Crayola, Match.com, Victoria Secret Pink, Tencent, and Baidu, is launching its own
sports division, VN Sports, to work directly with school and student-athletes to pair them with
brands and sponsorships (Liffering, 2021). “Colleges don’t have the infrastructure or expertise to
develop the monetization of athletes at scale,” says Joe Gagliese, CEO and co-founder of Viral
75
Nation; “They seek expertise from companies like Viral Nation that have facilitated global
campaigns for large brands with suitable legal structures to safeguard student-athletes. It’s not
that colleges don’t want their athletes to monetize their influence; colleges want it done the right
way” (Liffering, 2021, para 6).
Finally, schools are adjusting to the altering landscape due to the impact of the NIL. The
reputation of their brand and future revenue opportunities through NIL depends on how they
work with student-athletes moving forward; experts say colleges and universities providing the
most opportunity in this regard will benefit when it comes to future recruiting cycles (Liffering,
2021). Many universities are establishing NIL departments to help their student-athletes navigate
NIL implementation. The Ohio State University, for example, is at the forefront of this
movement and has implemented what it refers to as an “Edge Team.” The goal of this team is to
serve as an internal advisory group whose members can assist student-athletes with access and
resources to successfully pursue NIL opportunities (Nsouli & King, 2022). With virtually all of
Ohio State’s varsity sports having designated staff to work on NIL requests, the university has
also made it simple for companies to work with the players; a dedicated page on the OSU
athletics website, titled NIL Simplified, allows for companies to fill out a form with their contact
information and an indication of the player they would like to work with (Nsouli & King, 2022).
The increased involvement of boosters pooling their money in NIL collectives to attract
talented players has predictably made a robust NIL strategy a necessary tool on the recruiting
trail; as the influence of those collectives grows, more schools are realizing they need to get
involved if they want to maintain some control over how their teams are attracting players
(Murphy, 2022). For example, Maryland athletic director Damon Evans, who is hiring a director
76
of NIL for the Terps, said he’s looking for someone who “first and foremost” can serve as a
liaison between donor collectives and his athletic department (Murphy, 2022).
We at the University of Maryland have to be doing everything we can because, like
everything else, it’s part of the recruiting world,” Evans said. “Ask Blockbuster if they
wish they would’ve jumped in on streaming back in the day? (Murphy, 2022, para 8)
Although many schools in the industry are scrambling to adjust to the impact of the NIL,
not all are so quick to adapt. Stanford AD Bernard Muir “made one clear: Stanford won’t wade
into the pay-for-play waters—not now, not ever.” Stanford, now with back-to-back 3-9 football
seasons, may be a testament to what can happen when schools do not evolve with the times
(Letourneau, 2023). Stanford is the only Pac-12 university “not associating itself with a booster-
backed group known as a ‘collective’; For a “struggling program” like Stanford or Cal to “vault
up the college-football hierarchy, it must somehow out-recruit the top schools or find players
who are far better than their ratings suggest” (Letourneau, 2023, para, 6).
Such a solid catalyst for the industry may necessitate the development of
recommendations for schools that may be foreign to the industry. Since the landscape is so
competitive, addressing the needs of student-athletes in alternative ways may be the difference
that lands a top-tier recruit or keeps one in the sports program. Many schools are partnering with
third-party companies to help bridge the gap. The first recommendation derived from this study
takes suggests that an institutional mentorship component assisting student-athletes in their
professional development be added to the partnership. During summertime, institutions should
offer mentorship programs tasked with preparing students for NIL opportunities, educating them
on topics like branding, marketing, and compliance, and prepping them for navigating the NIL
landscape as agents. The program should include licensing players to work within the industry as
77
professionals, having them secure deals with the aid of a business mentor, and allowing them to
interact with prospects as recruiters when they come to campus. Wenger (1998) explains that
through social participation within a workplace community, identity and meaning can be created;
such practices and relationships serve as a way of complementing formal learning and increasing
the chances of securing talented prospects (Ramhurry & Luneta, 2021). Lave and Wenger (1991),
expounding their notion of a “community of practice,” make an inextricable link to learning,
practice, and identity development.
Secondly, to aid in recruiting top-tier student-athletes, NCAA policymakers should
consider a revenue-sharing plan ensuring that each member/participant of NCAA athletics
receives compensation. Revenue sharing has been introduced to increase competitive balance in
professional sports and has been crucial for the overall demand for competitive balance (Dietl et
al.,2010). This result is driven by the so-called “dulling effect” of revenue sharing; it reduces the
incentives for clubs to invest in playing talent because each club must share some of the resulting
marginal benefits of its talent investment with others (Dietl et al., 2010). Acceptance of the
changes in the landscape would include incorporating professional solutions in addressing
evolving issues. Recognition that professional sports begin at the collegiate level is a significant
step in solving recruitment issues concerning the industry. Participants in American collegiate
sports have recognized the idea for some time, and it is now time for institutional managers to
accept the notion as a concrete fact.
Another aid in recruitment that may add to securing talent and ease of anxiety for coaches
is a realteration of the National Letter of Intent (NLI). The NLI is a binding agreement between a
prospect and an institution, stating that the listed individual will attend said school in exchange
for that institution awarding financial aid for one academic year (National Letter of Intent, 2018).
78
Many lawyers believe the NLI can be legally identified as a “contract of adhesion,” which is “a
standard-form contract prepared by one party, to be signed by the party in a weaker position …
who adheres to the contract with little choice about the terms.” “The notion that the NLI is
voluntary is an absolute crock” (Heitner, 2009, para 4). “From the athlete’s perspective, the NLI
is a bad deal” (Heitner, 2009, para 2). Giving prospects the ability to have representation and
individual negotiation privileges concerning the contract in terms of years and compensation
may help secure top talent. Additionally, it may help define parameters during a time of chaos.
Finally, besides educating, mentoring, and addressing the issue legally, coaches,
recruiters, and collegiate institutional managers should adhere to the desires of prospects listed in
this study. Developing a program culture that embraces values of integrity among all
participants, builds their competitive skillset, offers the opportunity to participate while
simultaneously facilitating their personal growth, and remaining transparent in sharing their NIL
dealings will do wonders in securing talent. Student-athletes want to be contributing members of
a winning culture; the best organizations typically display a set of performance attributes that
align with their mission statement and reinforce the right behaviors; those behaviors include
honesty, being performance-focused, accountability on the part of participants and management,
collaboration, adaptivity, innovation and embracing standards of excellence (Mankins, 2013).
Participants of this study acknowledged the impact of compensatory benefits on the recruitment
dynamic; however, the data also conveyed the pertinence of the environment and opportunity as
equally important factors in influencing their school decision.
This study’s findings prove that while the changing of modern recruitment is occurring
due to the implementation of the NIL, prospects still understand the importance of culture,
opportunity, relationships, and environment. Furthermore, introducing monetary incentives
79
serves as an additional motivating factor driving them toward their goals. With that said, the
future is and will remain bright for the student-athlete; this study celebrates their newfound
freedom, makes mention of the responsibility that accompanies that freedom, and offers some
stability in sharing their insights during this time of turbulence.
Future Research
The landscape of American collegiate athletics is evolving rapidly, and inquiry into the
industry’s changing parameters will be necessary for its growth and development. In the future,
researching the juxtaposition between equality and capitalism is a logical follow-up due to the
rising concerns of participants.
Findings from this study suggest that all athletes are not deemed equal in terms of NIL
opportunities; understanding how those factors influence team dynamics, the culture of
institutional athletic programs, and the relationship between student-athletes and the institutions
they represent are all viable topics of study for the future. Furthermore, an inquiry into how the
introduction of money for prospects affects American youth sports, sports training, development,
and "amateur" sporting governing bodies is in order. As opportunities for prospects grow, their
physical training and sport’s specific skillset development will be of premium importance. What
will this mean for youth coaches, trainers, and development programs? What will it mean for
institutions like the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the governing body responsible
for California high school athletics? Also, future research on the relationship between
compensation and the collegiate transfer portal is an exciting topic of inquiry, as this newfound
benefit of compensation is accompanied by stronger demands in terms of performance. Here,
Seth Greenburg, ESPN College Basketball Analyst and former NCAA Men’s Basketball Head
Coach, shares his thoughts on the issue during a recent televised sports program:
80
In the era and the economy of college basketball today, we call it NIL, its pay for play;
let’s be honest about it … there will be 2500 players in the transfer portal … in the end,
whether you like it or not … all players are on one-year scholarships … basically, they’re
employees. If you don’t produce, if you can’t help someone win, be successful, you are
going to lose your job. (ESPN, 2023, 4:10).
Are student-athletes being pushed to transfer due to a perceived lack of production, and
what do NIL opportunities look like for those signees from the portal versus those already in the
athletic program? Finally, consideration of how compensatory action affects institutions and their
conference membership is an interesting future topic. What pressure will collegiate sporting
conference executives be under to ensure member institutions are adequately supported, and
what changes are schools willing to undertake to maintain recruiting advantages? Each topic
deserves thorough exploration for industrial success, and inquiry into each aspect will fill
significant voids within the industry.
The NIL is the catalyst sparking the need for a host of studies in the future, as the
comprehension and understanding of recruitment within the changing industry and redefining
ideas concerning “amateurism” will be a primary component of success for institutions, athletes,
and business participants.
Conclusion
Although findings from this study suggest that opportunities related to the NIL do not
supremely influence prospects’ decision-making process, their impact on collegiate recruitment
is significant. Not only does the NIL expand the collegiate sporting industry’s idea of the term
“amateur,” but it also prompts athletic participants to broaden their outlook on what their
contributions to educational institutions genuinely entail. Additionally, for the student-athlete, it
81
offers the burden of responsibility to educate themselves on the sports business, know what they
want during their time in school, and perform at the highest level. Furthermore, the NIL forces
coaches and recruiters to understand their profession from a broader perspective. To secure top-
tier talent, coaches must now share how their institutions educate, offer compensatory
opportunities, and support prospects. Finally, businesses will now have a significant role within
the recruitment paradigm, and the marriage between them and educational institutions will bring
noteworthy advancements within the collegiate sports spectrum. It is an exciting time in
American collegiate athletics, and the introduction of NIL is only the tip of the iceberg. This
study serves as a tool by which institutions, coaches, recruiters, businesses, and prospects alike
can shorten the learning curve, understand the domain’s developing needs and define new
parameters in recruitment during these unique, unprecedented times.
82
References
Ackerman, V ., & Scott, L. (2016, March 30). College athletes are being educated, not exploited.
CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/opinions/college-athletes-not-exploited-
ackerman-scott/index.html
Acosta, V ., & Carpenter, L., (2014). Woman in Intercollegiate Sport: A Longitudinal, National
Study. Thirty-Seven Year Update. Smith College’s Project on Women and Social Change
and Brooklyn College of the City University of New York.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570882.pdf
Adgate, B. (2023). March Madness Finals Ratings Set a Record High For Women, Record Low
for Men. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2023/04/05/ratings-for-the-march-madness-
finals-games-sets-a-record-high-women-and-a-record-low-men/?sh=4299861b6837
Alston v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 19-15566 (9th Cir. 2020).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/19-15566/19-15566-2020-05-
18.html
Andrews, K. (2021, November 16). Navigating the NCAA’ s Interim NIL Policy and State
Regulations. Bakertilly. https://www.bakertilly.com/insights/navigating-the-ncaas-
interim-nil-policy-and-state-regulations
Asdemir, K., Kumar, N., & Jacob, V . S. (2012). Pricing models for online advertising: CPM vs.
CPC. Information System Research, 23(3), 804–822.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215.
83
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 2(1), 21–41.
Bandura, A. (2002). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Uky. https://www.uky.edu/~
eushe2/Bandura/BanduraGuide2006.pdf
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44.
Bandura, A., & Hall, P. (2018). Albert Bandura and social learning theory. Learning Theories for
Early Years Practice, 63.
Bangdiwala, S. (2019). Basic epidemiology research designs I: Cross-sectional design.
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 26(1), 124–126.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2018.1556415
Bank, S. (2020). The Olympic sized loophole in California’s Fair Pay to Play Act. Columbia Law
Review Forum, 120(4), 109–117.
Barrett, G. (2013). Book review. Smith, Ronald. 2011 Pay for play: A history of big-time college
athletic reform. American Education History Journal, 40(2), 385–390.
Becker, G. (1994). Human Capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to
education (3
rd
ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
84
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative
research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234.
Bloomberg, L., & V olpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation: a roadmap from
beginning to end. Sage Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452226613
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon.
Booth, N., & Matic, J. A. (2011). Mapping and leveraging influencers in social media to shape
corporate brand perceptions. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
16(3), 184–191.
Borghesi, R. (2018). The financial and competitive value of NCAA basketball recruits. Journal
of Sports Economics, 19(1), 31–49.
Boston, A. (1888). Two excellent accounts of antebellum student life. Harvard Reminiscences.
Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: So many studies, so
many remaining questions, Journal of Management, 26(3), 405–434.
Bruner, J., Olver, R. R., Greenfield, P. M., Hornsby, J. R., & Harvard University. (1966). Studies
in cognitive growth: A collaboration at the Center for Cognitive Studies. John Wiley.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Business Insider Intelligence. (2019). The influencer marketing report. Business Insider.
Byers, W., & Hammer, C. (1995). Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes.
University of Michigan Press.
California legislative information. (2019, October 01). Senate Bill No. 206: Chapter 383.
Collegiate Athletics: Student-Athlete Compensation and Representation.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206
85
Carlson, B. D., & Donavan, D. T. (2008). Concerning the effect of athlete endorsements on brand
and team-related intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(3), 154–162.
Carvalho, J., & Baker, D. (2019) Taming the monster: The 1929 Carnegie report on college
athletics. The Southern Quarterly, 56(3), 69–82.
Choy, L. (2014). The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and
complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), 99–104.
College Athlete Race and Gender Act, 1401 U.S.C. § 67452.3 (2022).
Congressional Research Service. (2021, July 1). Name, Image, Likeness Legislation:
Considerations for the 117
th
Congress. R46828. Congressional Research Service Reports.
http://crsreports.congress.gov
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage Publications.
Croft, C. (2008). Factors influencing Big 12 Conference college basketball male student-athletes
selection of a university. [Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas, El Paso].
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. Sage Publications.
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. Sports, Business, and Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 399–415.
https://doi.org/10.1108/sbm-09-2018-0070
digital-marketing-in-2017/#7e6d507d3bf5
86
Dator, J., (2022). Deion Sanders told his Colorado players to ‘jump in that portal,’ in one of the
best speeches you’ll see. SBNATION
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2022/12/5/23494073/deion-sanders-colorado-
speech-transfer-portal
Dietl, H., Grossman, M., Markus, L., (2010). Competitive Balance and Revenue Sharing in
Sports Leagues with Utility-Maximizing Teams. International Association of Sports
Economists.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6351783.pdf
Dodd, D. (2022). College coaches, leaders share candid thoughts on future of NIL: ‘We all feel
like there’ s no rules.’CBSSports.com
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-coaches-leaders-share-candid-
thoughts-on-future-of-nil-we-all-feel-like-theres-no-rules/
Doosje, B., Figueiredo, A. M., Wirtz, C., Feddes, A. R., Degner, J., & Van Hemert, D. A. (2013).
A meta-analysis on in-group and out-group attitudes among children and adolescents: The
role of age, relative group status and basis of categorization [Unpublished manuscript].
Dosh, K. (2019). Marketers bullish on monetization opportunities for NCAA athletes with NIL
rights. Forbes.
Druckman, J. N., Rothschild, J. E., & Sharrow, E. A. (2018). Gender policy feedback: Perceptions of
sex equity, Title IX, and political mobilization among college athletes. Political Research
Quarterly, 71(3), 642–653. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45106688
ESPN. (2023, March 23) Battle of the New Guards & is there and upset brewing in the Sweet 16?
[Video]. Y ouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl7k-deRQuw
87
Eun, B. (2019). Adopting a stance: Bandura and Vygotsky on professional development.
Research in Education, 105(1), 74–88.
Evans, N. J., Phua, J., Lim, J., & Jun, H. (2017). Disclosing Instagram influencer advertising:
The effects of disclosure language on advertising recognition, attitudes, and behavioral
intent. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 17(2), 138–149.
Feldman, B. (2007). Meat Market: Inside the smash-mouth world of college football recruiting.
ESPN Books.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas,
C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory.
Journal of Management, 31(1), 126–152.
Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative
research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16–21.
Foley & Lardner Sports & Entertainment Group (2021). Nationwide Name, Image, and Likeness
(“NIL”) Tracker: A Compendium of College Sports NIL Laws in the U.S.
Frequently asked questions: NBA G League. The NBA G League. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12,
2023, from https://gleague.nba.com/faq
Funkhouser, G. (1993). A self-anchoring instrument and analytical procedure for reducing
cultural bias in cross-cultural research. The Journal of social psychology, 133(5), 661–
673. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9713921
Gabert, T., Hale, J., & Montalvo, G. (1999). Differences in college choice factors among
freshman student-athletes. The Journal of College Admission, 164, 20–29.
88
Galdas, P. (2017). Revisiting bias in qualitative research: Reflections on its relationship with
funding and impact. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917748992
Geurin-Eagleman, A. N., & Clavio, G. (2015). Utilizing social media as a marketing
communication tool: An examination of mainstream and niche sports athletes’ Facebook
pages. International Journal of Sport Management, 16(2), 488–497.
Geurin, A. N. (2017). Elite female athletes’ perceptions of new media use relating to their
careers: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Sport Management, 31(4), 345–359.
Given, L. M. (Ed.) (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Sage
Publications, Inc., http://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for
qualitative research. Aldine.
Gleeson, S. (2021). LaMelo Ball doesn’t regret unorthodox path to NBA: ‘School’ s not your
priority.’ USA Today.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/hornets/2021/08/17/lamelo-ball-hornets-no-
regrets-school/8164695002/
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Random House.
Goss, B., Jubenville, C. B., & Orejan, J. (2006). An examination of influences and factors on the
institutional selection processes of freshman student-athletes at small colleges and
universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 16(2), 105–134.
Grambeau, K. (2020). Student Athlete Perception of Name, Image, and Likeness Compensation.
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
89
Gregory, S. ( 2021). Why the NCAA Should be Terrified of Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh’ s
Concurrence. Time.
https://time.com/6074583/ncaa-supreme-court-ruling/
Geisler, M., (2023). Media Tip Sheep: NIL and the Transfer Portal Changing Collegiate
Athletics. George Washington University.
https://www.newswise.com/articles/media-tip-sheet-nil-and-the-transfer-portal-changing-
collegiate-athletics
Geurin, A. N. (2017). Elite female athletes’ perceptions of new media use relating to their
careers: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Sport Management, 31(4), 345-359.
Hall, B. (1851). A collection of college words and customs. Cambridge.
Hancock, J., & Toma, C. (2009). Putting your best face forward: the accuracy of online dating
photographs. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 367–386.
Harrison, K. (2017, January 9). Top 10 trends that will transform digital marketing in 2017.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateharrison/2017/01/09/top-10-trendsthat-will-
transform-digital-marketing-in-2017/#7e6d507d3bf5
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination.
Sage Publications.
Helin, K (2023). Report: NBA Minimum draft age will not change in new CBA; one-and-done
remains. NBC Sports. https://nba.nbcsports.com/2023/03/31/report-nba-minimum-draft-
age-will-not-change-in-new-cba-one-and-done-remains/
Heitner, D. (2009). To Sign Or Not To Sign, That Is The Question. Sports Agent Blog.
https://sportsagentblog.com/2009/02/03/to-sign-or-not-to-sign-that-is-the-question/
90
Hinnosaar, M., & Hinnosaar, T. (2012). Authority bias. Working paper. Northwestern University.
Department of Economics.
Hodge, C., & Walker, M., (2015). Personal branding: A perspective from the professional athlete-
level-of-analysis. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 16 (1-2),
112-131.
Howard, J. (2019). Bandwagon effect and authority bias. In J. Howard (ed.), Cognitive errors
and diagnostic mistakes (pp. 21–56). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93224-
8_3
Hughes, N., & Davies, M. (2007). Doing a successful research project: Using qualitative or
quantitative methods. Palgrave Macmillan.
Iconsource. (2021). State of California NIL laws: What college athletes and sponsors need to
know. Iconsource. https://www.iconsource.com/california-nil-laws.html
Jackson, W. (2022, May 17). California sisters become first high school students to sign NIL deal
with Nike, per report. Sports Illustrated. https://www.si.com/high-
school/2022/05/17/california-sisters-become-first-hs-students-to-sign-nil-deal-with-nike-
per-report
Jennings, C. (2022, May 9). Winners, losers, and reloads of the women’s basketball transfer
portal. The Athletic. https://theathletic.com/3300380/2022/05/09/winners-losers-
reloaders-womens-basketball-transfer-portal/
Jessop, A., & Sabin, J. (2021). The sky is not falling: Why name, image, and likeness legislation
does not violate Title IX and could narrow the publicity gap between men’s sport and
women’s sports athletes. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 31(2), 253–288.
https://doi.org/10.18060/25602
91
Jeyarajah, S., (2023). Inside the chaotic transfer portal recruiting process consuming the college
football offseason. CBS.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/inside-the-chaotic-transfer-portal-
recruiting-process-consuming-the-college-football-offseason/
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Sage.
Jordan, J. (2021, July 1). Hoops recruits say NIL approval makes college more attractive:
College athletes are now permitted to benefit financially from their name, image, and
likeness. Sports Illustrated. https://www.si.com/college/recruiting/basketball/ncaa-nil-
rights-makes-college-more-attractive-to-elite-recruits
Kankey, K., & Quarterman, J. (2007). Factors Influencing the university choice of NCAA
Division I softball players. The Smart Journal, 3(2), 35–49.
Keller, B. (2022, May 10). NIL Incoming: Comparing State Laws and Proposed Legislation.
Opendorse. https://opendorse.com/blog/comparing-state-nil-laws-proposed-legislation/
King, B. (2005, May 12). Race for recruits. SportsBusiness Journal.
http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/48176.
Koyuncu, A. (2019). The role of age in combination with cultural values in in-group bias.
Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 15(2).
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A583693619/SCIC?u=usocal_main&sid=bookmark-
SCIC&xid=7845127e
Kunkel, T., Baker, B., Baker, T., & Doyle, J. (2021). There is no NIL: Examining the social
media value of student-athletes names, images, and likenesses. Sport Management
Review, 24(5), 839–861.
92
LaRose, B., & Sawchak, M. (2021). Not so alike: Current impact of NIL administration on the
regulation of sports agents. Robinson Bradshaw Publication.
https://www.robinsonbradshaw.com/newsroom-publications-Not-So-Alike-Current-
Impact-of-NIL-Administration-on-the-Regulation-of-Sports-Agents.html
Lechner, C. M., Partsch, M. V ., Danner, D., & Rammstedt, B. (2019). Individual, situational, and
cultural correlates of acquiescent responding: Towards a unified conceptual framework.
British Journal of Math and Statistical Psychology, 72(3), 426–446.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12164
Letawsky, N. R., Schneider, R. G., & Palmer, C. J. (2005). Factors influencing the college
selection process of male and female student-athletes. International Journal of Sport
Management, 6(1), 84–97.
Letourneau, C. (2023). Can Stanford win without NIL deals? The answer could change college
football. San Francisco Chronicle. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/college/article/nil-
stanford-football-ncaa
Lewis, G. (1970). The beginning of organized collegiate sport. American Quarterly, 22(2), 222–
229.
Libit, D. (2022, April 19). NIL is nothing: California’s next big anti-NCAA bill takes the field.
Sportico. https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/california-college-
athlete-revenue-1234673221/
Lichtman, M. V . (2013). Qualitative research in education: A user’ s guide. Sage.
Liffreing, I. (2021). How colleges are navigating NIL laws by turning to influencer shops;
schools are eager to show they are helping student-athletes get NIL deals to boost their
brand and recruiting efforts. Crain Communications, Inc.
93
https://adage.com/article/marketing-news-strategy/colleges-turn-influencer-agencies-
navigate-nil-laws/2362561
Lim, X., Radzol, A., Cheah, J., & Wong, M. (2017). The Impact of social media influencers on
purchase intention and the mediation effect of customer attitude. Asian Journal of
Business Research, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.14707/ajbr.170035
Lin, J., Paulson, L., Romsa, B., Walker, H., & Romsa, K. (2017). Analysis of factors influencing
the college choice decisions of NCAA Division II elite track and field athletes.
International Journal of Sports and Physical Education, 3(2), 22–31.
Lincoln, Y . S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Lodge, A. (2016). Who’s afraid of the big bad NCAA? The Ed O’Bannon. NCAA decision’s
impact on the NCAA’s amateurism model. The Journal of Corporation Law, 41(3), 776–
793.
Magnusen, M., Kim, Y ., Perrewe, P., & Ferris, G. (2014). A critical review and synthesis of
student-college choice factors: Recruiting effectiveness in NCAA sports. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(6), 1265–1286.
Mankins, M. (2013). The Defining Elements of a Winning Culture. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2013/12/the-definitive-elements-of-a-winning-culture
Marietta, M. (2022). NCAA v. Alston on College Sports. In: M. Marietta (ed.), SCOTUS 2021
(pp. 101–110). Palgrave Macmillan Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88641-
7_10
Marino, G. (2021, August 04). NCAA v. Alston: The beginning of the end or the end of the
beginning? Foley & Lardner LLP .
94
Mason-Bish, H. (2019). The elite delusion: Reflexivity, identity, and positionality in qualitative
research. Qualitative Research, 19(3), 263–276.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118770078
McCann, M. (2019, September 30). What’s next after California signs game-changer fair pay-to-
play act into law? Sports Illustrated. https://www.si.com/college/2019/09/30/fair-pay-to-
play-act-law-ncaa-california-pac-12
McCarthy, C. (2020). Experts weigh in on the NCAA name, image, and likeness debate. College
Athletics and the Law, 16(12), 1–7.
McCollough, B. (2022, May 16). Think the NIL blew up college sports? California is going for
the knockout with new bill. The Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-05-16/nil-college-sports-california-bill-ncaa
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey Bass.
Meyer, J., & Zimbalist, A. (2020). A win-win: college athletes get paid for their names, images,
and likenesses, and colleges maintain the primacy of academics. Journal of Sports &
Entertainment Law, 11, 247–277.
Miller, N. E., & Doddard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. Yale University Press.
Minichiello, V ., Aroni, R., & Hays, T. (2008). In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques,
analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson Australia Group.
Muenzen, K. R. (2003). Weakening its own defense? The NCAA’s version of amateurism.
Marquette Sports Law Review, 13(2), 257–288.
95
Murphy, Dan. (2022). Players, Schools, and Boosters adjusting to new NIL reality and
opportunity. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/34404567/players-
schools-boosters-adjusting-new-nil-reality-opportunity
Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Athletic Grant-in-AidCap Antitrust Litig.,375F.Supp. 3d1058
(N.D.Cal. 2019), aff’d, 958 F.3d1239 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. granted sub nom., Am.
Athletic Conference v. Alston, No. 20-520, 2020 WL 7366279 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2020), Nat’l
Coll. Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, No. 20 -512, 2020 WL 7366281 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2020)
[hereinafter Grant-in-Aid I].
National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. (2022). About Us. NAIA.
https://www.naia.org/about/about-us
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Tuition costs of colleges and universities.
NCES. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011). F ARA meeting – NCAA GOALS study on
student-athlete experience. NCAA. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from
www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/DI_GOALS_FARA_final_1.pdf
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2013). Chronology of enforcement. NCAA.
http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Enforcement/Resources/Chronologyþofþ
Enforcement
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2016). GOALS study of the student-athlete experience.
NCAA. Retrieved March 9, 2018 from
www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/GOALS_2015_summary_jan2016_final_20160627.pdf
96
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2017). Estimated probability of competing in
professional athletics. NCAA. www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-
probability-competing-professional-athletics
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2022a). Divisional differences and the history of multi-
division classification. NCAA. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/20/divisional-
differences-and-the-history-of-multidivision-classification.aspx
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2022b). Name, Image, Likeness. NCAA.
http://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/7/9/name-image-likeness.aspx
NCAA Ath. Grant-In-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig. - 375 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
NCAA Research. (2021, February). Destination of 2020 NCAA Division I Men’ s Basketball
Transfers. NCAA. https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/transfers/2020-
21RES_DestD1MBBTransfers.pdf
Nelson, T. D. (2019). Reducing ageism: Which interventions work? American Journal of Public
Health, 109(8), 1066–1067. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305195
NIL partners announces the launch of their educational-focused platform for student-athletes: Nil
partners are addressing the important need for financial literacy, social media savvy, and
mental health awareness for college student-athletes in the new era of NIL agreements.
(2022, Jan 12). PR Newswire Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/nil-partners-
announces-launch-their-educational/docview/2618929537/se-2
Novak, W. (2021). Student-athlete name, image, likeness legislation: Considerations for the 117
th
Congress. Congressional Research Service.
97
Nover, S. (2021, August 2). In California, even high school athletes can score endorsement
deals. Quartz. https://qz.com/2041395/high-schoolers-can-profit-off-their-nil-in-one-
state/
Nsouli, E., King, A. (2022) How Schools and Private Entities Have Engaged in NIL Activity.
Squire Patton Boggs. https://www.sports.legal/2022/07/how-schools-and-private-entities-
have-engaged-in-nil-activity/
O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 802 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2015).
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-o-bannon-v-ncaa
O’Brien, T. (2021). Social media policies, and promotional support can impact student-athletes
NIL rights. College Athletics and the Law, 18(8), 3–3.
Oriard, M. (2012). NCAA academic reform: History, context, and challenges. Journal of
Intercollegiate Sport, 5(1), 4–18.
Osborne, J., Jensen, A., & Weight, E. (2020). Intercollegiate athletics: A unique segment of the
sports industry. Journal of Global Sport Management, 5(1), 13–33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2019.1669067
Park, J., Williams, A., Son, Sungwook. (2020). Social Media as a Personal Branding Tool: A
Qualitative Study of Student-Athletes’ Perceptions and Behaviors, Journal of Athlete
Development and Experience: 2(1).
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice: The definitive text of qualitative inquiry frameworks and options. Sage
Publications.
Pauline, J. (2012). Factors influencing college selection by NCAA Division I, II, and III soccer
players. International Journal of Sport Management, 13(1), 87–103.
98
Pfleegor, A., Soebbing, B., & Seifried, C. (2019). Corruption, rule-breaking, and sanctions: The
case of the NCAA, Journal of Global Sport Management, 4(1), 38–60.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2018.1493355
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. W.W. Norton.
https://doi.org/10.1037/11494-000
Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd
ed.). Sage.
Rassmussen, K. (2023). ESPN Reveals Record-Setting Rating for Women’ s Final Four. Sports
Illustrated.
https://www.si.com/college/2023/04/01/espn-reveals-womens-final-four-viewership-
numbers
Romano, R. (2021). Consider insights into NCAA’s latest NIL (in)decision. College Athletics and
the Law, 18(5), 8–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/catl.30907
Scott, S. (2021). The G League vs. The NCAA. The Lincolnian.
https://lincolnian.net/1978/sports/the-g-league-vs-the-ncaa/
Schad, T., (2022). NCAA transfer portal explained: What it actually is and how it works in
college football. USA Today.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2022/12/15/ncaa-college-football-transfer-
portal-explained/10889658002/
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Sage.
Sherman, R. (2019, October 01). The Fair Pay to Play Act has been signed. Now the NCAA must
address a question to which it’ s never had a good answer. Ringer.
99
https://www.theringer.com/2019/10/1/20892842/fair-pay-to-play-act-college-sports-
california-law-gavin-newsom
Shmanske, S. (1992). Human capital formation in professional sports: Evidence from the PGA
tour. Atlantic Economic Journal, 20(3), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300173
Silvester, C. (2021). Authority bias. In M. Raz & P. Pouryahya (eds.), Decision making in
emergency medicine (pp. 41–46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0143-9_7
Smith, R. A. (2010). 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), 10–22.
Sorbe, J., Custis, T., & Weinandt, M. (2022). The NCAA’s breaking point for equal opportunity:
A Title IX perspective on name, image, and likeness sponsorship legislation. Journal for
the Study and Athletes in Education, 16(1), 1–22.
Spector, P. (2019). Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 34(6), 125–137.
Stark-Mason, R. (2020). What name, image, and likeness mean for college sports? And how the
NCAA is turning to student-athletes to navigate a path forward. NCAA.
http://www.ncaa.org/champion/name-image-likeness
Stefanone, M., Yue, Z., & Toh, Z. (2018). A social cognitive approach to traditional media
content and social media use: Selfie-related behavior as a competitive strategy. New
Media and Society, 1–19.
https://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/cas/communication/files/Stefanone/Stefanone%20e
t%20al%20NM&S%202018.pdf
100
Stubb, C., Nyström, A. G., & Colliander, J. (2019). Influencer marketing: The impact of
disclosing sponsorship compensation justification on sponsored content
effectiveness. Journal of Communication Management, 23(2), 109–122.
Suggs, D. (2022). What is Overtime Elite? League offers high school basketball stars like Naasir
Cunningham another path to the NBA.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-division-i/news/overtime-elite-basketball-league-
naasir-cunningham-nba/jsvir6mdcjedrb7e8ddnsih7
Sukera, J. (2019). Empathy and Implicit Bias: Can Empathy Training Improve Equity? Teaching
Empathy in Healthcare, Springer, Cham.
Tadmor, C. T., Hong, Y .-Y ., Chao, M. M., Wiruchnipawan, F., & Wang, W. (2012). Multicultural
experiences reduce intergroup bias through epistemic unfreezing. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 103(5), 750 –772. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029719
Tapinfluence. (2017). What is influencer marketing? TapInfluence.
https://www.tapinfluence.com/blog-what-is-influencer-marketing/
Tatos, T. (2019). NCAA amateurism as an anti-competitive tying restraint. The Antitrust Bulletin,
64(3), 387–427.
Taylor, S., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for
meanings. John Wiley.
Thompson, T. P. (2022). Maximizing NIL rights for college athletes. Iowa Law Review, 107(3),
1347–1387. http://www-proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/maximizing-
nil-rights-college-athletes/docview/2645529635/se-2?accountid=14749
U.S. Department of Education. (2021, August 20). Title IX and Sex Discrimination.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html
101
Ültanir, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach: Constructivist
learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. International Journal of
Instruction, 5(2), 195–212.
Weathersby, J. (2016). Teddy Roosevelt’s role in the creation of the NCAA. The Sports
Historian. https://www.thesportshistorian.com/teddy-roosevelts-role-in-the-creation-of-
the-ncaa
Weaver, T. ( 2023). 5-Star guard AJ Johnson decommits from Texas, going pro in Australia.
Yahoo Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/5-star-guard-aj-johnson-
180930480.html?fr=sychp_catchall
White, A. A., Logghe, H. J., Goodenough, D. A., Barnes, L. L., Hallward, A., Allen, I. M., Green,
D. W., Krupat, E., & Llerena-Quinn, R. (2018). Self-awareness and cultural identity as an
effort to reduce bias in medicine. Journal of Racial and Ethic Health Disparities, 5(1),
34–49.
Wieberg, S., & Berkowitz, S. (2009). NCAA colleges pushing the envelope with sports
marketing. USA Today.
Wittry, A. (2021, February 26). Pandora’ s Keg: Will there be an unrestricted market for alcohol-
related name, image, and likeness endorsements for college athletes? Out of Bounds with
Andy Wittry. https://andywittry.substack.com/p/pandoras-keg-will-there-be-an-
unrestricted?s=r
Wong, L. (2008). Data analysis in qualitative research: A brief guide to using NVivo. Malaysian
Family Physician: The Official Journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of
Malaysia, 3(1), 14–20.
102
Wong, G., Skillman, K., & Deubert, C. (2009). The NCAA’s infractions appeal committee:
Recent case history, analysis and the beginning of a new chapter. Virginia Sports and
Entertainment Law Journal, 9, 47–66.
Wong, L. E. (2010). Our blood, our sweat, their profit: Ed O’Bannon takes on the NCAA for
infringing on the former student-athlete’s right to publicity. Texas Tech Law Review,
42(4), 1069–1108.
Yen, A. (2011). Early Scholarship Offers and the NCAA. Boston College Law Review; Newton
Centre, 52(2), 585–616.
Zucker, J. (2016). NCAA Implements Changes to NBA Draft Process: Latest Details, Comments.
Bleacher Report.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2607617-ncaa-implements-changes-to-nba-draft-
process-latest-details-comments
103
Appendix A: Survey Draft
Research questions:
1. How does implementing NIL legislation impact the school decision-making process
for potential collegiate student-athletes?
2. From the student-athlete perspective, how has the NIL changed the recruitment
dynamic?
3. How prepared are potential collegiate student-athletes to take advantage of these new
NIL opportunities?
Target population: prospective collegiate student-athletes.
104
Table A1
Interview Questions
Question Open or closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(Nominal, ordinal,
interval, ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
1. What year are
you in school,
athletically?
Closed Nominal 1. Sophomore
2. Freshman
3. H.S. Senior
4. H.S. Junior
5. H.S. Sophomore
6. H.S. Freshman
1 Confirm status as a
prospect
1. At what age did
you first begin to
play basketball?
Closed Ratio 1. 0-5
2. 5-1
3. 10-15
4. 15 or older
1 Building rapport
2. Do you consider
collegiate
athletes to be
professionals?
Closed Nominal 1. Yes
2. No
1 Building rapport
105
Question Open or closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(Nominal, ordinal,
interval, ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
3. At what level do
you see yourself
competing
collegiately?
Closed Nominal 1. Div. I
2. Div. II
3. Div. III
4. NAIA
1 Building rapport
5. How many
collegiate
athletic
scholarships
offers have you
had so far in
your career?
Closed Ratio 1. 0-3
2. 4-7
3. 7-10
4. 10+
1 Transactional
background
6. Do you currently
participate in
social media,
how does it
affect your NIL
opportunities,
and how does it
affect your
school
attendance
decision?
Open/Closed Nominal 1. Yes
2. No
2 Personal brand
establishment
106
Question Open or closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(Nominal, ordinal,
interval, ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
7. What would you
rate your
knowledge of the
newly
implemented
Name, Image,
Likeness (NIL)
law?
Closed Ordinal 1. Extremely
2. Completely
3. Somewhat
4. A Bit
5. Not at all
3 Knowledge base
8. Do you feel like
student-athletes
should be paid,
how do you
believe it should
occur, and do
you feel that the
NIL meets a
standard of
payment equal to
the time and
work it takes to
be a student-
athlete?
Closed Nominal 1. Yes
2. No
1/2 Opinion
107
Question Open or closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(Nominal, ordinal,
interval, ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
9. How much will
your earning
potential using
your name,
image, and
likeness
influence your
decision on
school selection?
Closed Ordinal 1. Extremely
2. Completely
3. Somewhat
4. A Bit
5. Not at all
1/2/3 Opinion
10. Do you
currently own
any businesses?
Closed Nominal 1. Yes
2. No
2/3 Brand
establishment
11. Should college
recruiters address
the NIL during
the recruitment
process?
Closed Nominal 1. Yes
2. No
2/3 Opinion
12. Do you expect
the recruiter to
be an expert in
the intricacies of
the NIL?
Closed Nominal 1. Yes
2. No
1/2/3 Opinion
108
Question Open or closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(Nominal, ordinal,
interval, ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
13. How would you
define your
current
socioeconomic
status?
Open 1/2/3 Opinion
14. What is your
understanding of
branding, and
how does it
affect your
possibilities for
NIL
opportunities?
Open 1/2/3 Opinion
15. Does the NIL
impact your
school decision-
making process?
Open 1/2/3 Opinion
16. In your opinion,
how do the NIL
and social media
relate?
Open 1/2/3 Opinion
109
Question Open or closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(Nominal, ordinal,
interval, ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
17. In what ways
can you see
yourself
monetizing off
the NIL
implementation?
Open 1/2/3 Opinion
17. In your opinion,
describe how the
NIL has changed
men’s and
women’s
basketball
recruitment?
Open 1/2/3 Opinion
18. What matters
most to you
when deciding
what school to
attend at the
university level?
Open 1/2/3 Opinion
19. How does the
implementation
of NL legislation
impact, if at all,
the school
decision-making
process for
Open 1/2/3 Opinion
110
Question Open or closed?
Level of
Measurement.
(Nominal, ordinal,
interval, ratio)
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured (from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
potential
collegiate
student-athletes?
111
111
Appendix B: Consent Decree
To ensure transparency, this section displays the consent decree used during this study.
The Impact of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Legislation on the Decision-Making
Process Regarding School Attendance for Student-Athletes
• I............................................................voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.
• I understand that even if I agree to participate now, I can withdraw at any time or refuse to
answer any question without any consequences of any kind.
• I understand that I can withdraw permission to use data from my interview within two weeks
after the interview, in which case the material will be deleted.
• I have had the purpose and nature of the study explained to me in writing, and I have had the
opportunity to ask questions about the survey.
• I understand that participation involves a semi-structured interview with associated probing
questions.
• I understand that I will not benefit directly from participating in this research.
• I agree to my interview being audio-recorded.
• I understand that all information I provide for this study will be treated confidentially.
• I understand that in any report on the results of this research, my identity will remain
anonymous. This will be done by changing my name and disguising any details of my interview
which may reveal my identity or the identity of the people I speak about.
• I understand that disguised extracts from my interview may be quoted in the final dissertation
presentation.
• I understand that if I inform the researcher that myself or someone else is at risk of harm, they
may have to report this to the relevant authorities - they will discuss this with me first but may be
required to report with or without my permission.
• I understand that signed consent forms and original audio recordings will be retained in a
locked area of my personal office.
• I understand that a transcript of my interview in which all identifying information has been
removed.
112
112
• I understand that I am free to contact any of the people involved in the research to seek further
clarification and information.
Emanuel Brown, Doctoral Candidate, Organizational Change and Leadership, University of Southern
California (323) 428-9785
----------------------------------------- -------------------------------
Signature of participant Date
---------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Signature of parent/guardian of participant (18 and under) Date
---------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Signature of researcher Date
I believe the participant is giving informed consent to participate in this study.
---------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Signature of researcher Date
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
NIL: the one-year anniversary of a money-maker or just one more thing for the athlete to deal with?
PDF
Student-athletes and leadership: a case study of the impact of collegiate athletics on social change behavior and leadership development
PDF
But who really wins?: College athletes' analysis of name, image, and likeness policy narratives
PDF
Lived experiences of athletic administrators advancing athletic programming
PDF
The perceived importance coaches have on student-athletes' academic performance
PDF
Examining the experiences of high school counselors when advising student athletes on the NCAA college going process
PDF
Women and leadership: the impact of collegiate athletics on leader identity development and attainment of leadership positions
PDF
Parental perspectives on the collegiate sports recruiting process
PDF
Metacognition and self-regulation strategies to support high school student athletes
PDF
Latino/a college student-athletes: Influences on recruitment, enrollment and degree completion
PDF
Personal and environmental influences on preparing for transition from sport: a social cognitive approach to exploring the collegiate experiences of Black former NFL players
PDF
From recruitment to graduation: a curriculum to navigate admissions for prospective student-athletes
PDF
The 5th quarter: investigating career exploration and development of Black football student-athletes
PDF
Improving student-athlete mental health services: addressing the mental health needs of college student-athletes
PDF
Career development of Black male revenue generating student-athletes within an environment of anti-Black racism
PDF
Defining values in smaller college athletic programs: athletics effect on graduation rates
PDF
The lack of National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) hiring of male and female BIPOC athletics coaches
PDF
Exploring the academic success of black male former student-athletes and their experiences with academic support upon re-entry to college
PDF
Walking away from the game: a phenomenological study on student-athletes career transition
PDF
Best practices when investigating sexual misconduct allegations against NCAA Division I student athletes: a documentary analysis of Department of Education investigative reports from 2011–2017
Asset Metadata
Creator
Brown, Emanuel Jason
(author)
Core Title
The impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) legislation on the decision-making process regarding school attendance for student-athletes
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2023-05
Publication Date
05/22/2023
Defense Date
04/03/2023
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
amateurism,American collegiate sports,college recruitment,College sports,Image,likeness,name,NCAA,NIL,OAI-PMH Harvest,pay for play,Senate Bill 206,Sports,sports industry,student-athlete,The fair pay to play act,transfer portal
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Spann, Rufus Tony (
committee chair
), Ott, Maria (
committee member
), Rousseau, Julie (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ejbrown@usc.edu,freemanfse@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113132898
Unique identifier
UC113132898
Identifier
etd-BrownEmanu-11877.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-BrownEmanu-11877
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Brown, Emanuel Jason
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20230522-usctheses-batch-1047
(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
Tags
amateurism
American collegiate sports
college recruitment
likeness
NCAA
NIL
pay for play
Senate Bill 206
sports industry
student-athlete
The fair pay to play act
transfer portal