There’s a huge elephant in the corner of the room, and her name is NILA. Now, most of us call her NIL for short, but if you ask anyone (and by anyone, I mean everyone), we all know her real name is actually NILA. And for some reason, she’s controversial.

Here’s the thing, compensation for NIL (Name, Image and Likeness) has been around in college sports for a few years now, and generally it’s been a good thing. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept of “authentic” NIL, and for the few athletes that have the capacity to get deals that are genuinely about leveraging an athlete's personality or public image, it’s fantastic. For instance, profiles like Shedeur Sanders or Livvy Dunne are undeniable examples of individuals whose charisma and public appeal generate immense value. But let’s be honest with ourselves: for the vast majority of athletes - name, image or likeness really isn’t the draw.

The Reality of Value

The hard truth is that very few people—athletes or otherwise—can generate significant compensation from their name, image, or likeness alone. Why? Because for most of us, those elements simply aren’t valuable enough on their own. The real value lies in ability. It always has.

Fair compensation being tied to ability is the most natural transaction there is. We use it every day, all day:

• I can’t sew, so I’ll pay a tailor.
• I can’t fix my car, so I’ll pay a mechanic.
• I can’t cook (or, at least, not up to my appreciation for eating), so I’ll pay a chef.
• And I can’t shoot 85% from the free-throw line, so I’ll pay an athlete.

Ability matters because it produces results we value. I want my suit to fit perfectly, my car to run smoothly, my meals to be delicious, and my team to win games. That’s the crux of it. Athletes bring ability that matters to fans, and fans are willing to pay for that ability because it directly impacts the team’s success.

“But we shouldn’t have to pay athletes!”

I also understand that not every fan will feel compelled to pay for athletic ability, and that’s perfectly fine. I get that certain fans just don’t care enough to see the value there, and that’s exactly the point. A free market is about freedom—the freedom to not pay for what you don’t value is as important as the freedom to invest in what you do. That’s the beauty of this system, and the beauty of capitalism at large. A free market always has an equilibrium, but it requires supply (or lack thereof) and demand (or lack thereof).

Now the wrinkle that’s unique with college sports is the “college” bit. Yes, it’s big business. But no, it’s not necessarily good business. We’ve seen the books and it’s a myth that colleges are hoarding money hand-over-fist. They want to be fair - but they can’t be fair. The revenue structure has always been far more convoluted than other professional leagues because revenue-generating sports have to cover non-revenue generating sports (along with a host of other costs). Flawed or not, the alumni/supporter contribution model has always been a mainstay of NCAA funding, and it’s not going away any time soon.

The Proposed (And Still Flawed) NIL Framework

That said, The NCAA’s upcoming solution to compensation via the proposed terms of the House settlement is flawed for two critical reasons:

1. It’s an Illegal antitrust violation. Schools have colluded to set a salary cap on athletes without granting them negotiation or employment rights. In the US, that’s very, very illegal. While schools are constrained by their financial models, this doesn’t necessarily justify their actions any more than another industry colluding to cap pay because it’s “good for the industry.”
2. The “Fair Market” NIL myth. The NCAA’s proposed solution allows athletes to earn “fair market” NIL money on top of these unilaterally capped salaries. But here’s the problem: for 98% of athletes, the fair market value of their NIL is close to zero. The hype around the top 2% obscures the reality for most athletes. They lack the social media followers, name recognition, or brand appeal to command significant advertising dollars.

So, what’s left for the 98%? The answer is simple: ability.

Ability is the Real Value

Let’s be honest, fans don’t actually care whether an athlete can sell products on Instagram; they care about what they can do between the lines. Cam Skattebo may not be a marketing virtuoso that can sing, dance and sell, but he can crash between tackles and prove himself impossible to take down on the field. The truth we all know is that this is what the Arizona State fans actually value.

It’s time to embrace this reality. We’re not just paying for Name, Image, and Likeness. We’re paying for Name, Image, Likeness, and Ability.

Meet NILA

Let’s stop dancing around the truth. Fair market value for athletes must reflect their contributions across the full spectrum of what they bring to the table. Some athletes will excel in brand value alone, but for the majority, their unique ability is the value that impacts the product we love. And guess what…that’s okay. We can all accept the truth, and it feels pretty good to be a bit more honest, open and transparent about this reality.

It’s time to call this what it is. Let's stop dancing around the reality we all see and give athletes the fair and free market compensation they deserve.

So, Hi NILA. 👋. It's nice to finally meet you.

‍