The evolution of collegiate sports has significantly shifted following the emergence of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies. It changed the structure and financial dynamics of collegiate sports to that of professional leagues such as the NFL, NBA, and MLB. It transformed student-athletes from non-earning amateurs into individuals capable of leveraging their personal brands for substantial financial gain. In this Article, Doron Narotzki and Yariv Brauner explore the multifaceted impact of these changes. They analyze the implications of NIL rights, particularly through the lens of taxation.  Their analysis offers a historical perspective, practical applications of NIL rights, and an exploration of the everyday tax implications. 

By bridging the gap between NIL opportunities and their tax implications, Narotzki and Brauner provide a valuable resource for student-athletes navigating this complex terrain. This evolution reflects a broader shift toward empowering student-athletes not only as competitors but also as savvy participants in the modern economy. It highlights the transition from amateurism to a more commercialized model, allowing student-athletes to monetize their personal brands.

Narotzki and Brauner begin by placing NIL rights within a historical and legal framework. For decades, NCAA policies prohibited student-athletes from profiting off their names, images, or likenesses to preserve their amateur status. This restriction ensured a strict separation between collegiate and professional sports, but it also left student-athletes financially disadvantaged while institutions profited immensely from their efforts. Legal cases such as O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston v. NCAA were pivotal in challenging these inequities, bringing antitrust issues to light and ultimately paving the way for NIL reform. Public opinion, amplified by media and advocacy from notable figures, further pressured the NCAA to change its policies. By 2021, the organization implemented groundbreaking reforms that allowed student-athletes to earn income from NIL activities.

The economic opportunities unlocked by NIL rights are one of the article’s most compelling sections. Narotzki and Brauner identify five key revenue streams for student-athletes: endorsements and sponsorships, social media influencing, personal appearances, merchandise sales, and digital content. Endorsements and sponsorships, perhaps the most lucrative avenue, allow athletes to promote brands through traditional and digital media. The article explores how athletes with substantial social media followings can collaborate with brands for promotional campaigns, often earning significant revenue. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram are particularly transformative, enabling athletes to directly engage with their audiences while monetizing their content. High-profile athletes are not the only beneficiaries—even those with niche appeal can leverage their unique stories to attract sponsorships.

Social media influencing—a cornerstone of modern branding—is another opportunity that affected NIL reform. Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram allow athletes to act as content creators, producing videos, tutorials, and vlogs that attract sponsorship deals and advertising revenue. Narotzki and Brauner provide examples of athletes who have successfully capitalized on their digital presence, such as the Cavinder Twins, who turned their TikTok fame into a portfolio of NIL partnerships. These activities as influencers enable athletes to connect with fans in authentic ways while generating income.

Narotzki and Brauner also examine the value of personal appearances, autograph sessions, and speaking engagements. These activities allow athletes to engage directly with fans while earning additional income. Outreach in public appearances at promotional events, autograph sessions, and conferences provide financial benefits and help athletes build their personal brands and fan circles. Similarly, merchandise sales represent another powerful avenue. Athletes can design and sell branded products such as clothing, memorabilia, and custom items that resonate with their supporters. By promoting these products through social media and live events, athletes create not only lasting connections with their fan base but also business ventures with scalable production, distribution, and marketing activities.

The article’s discussion on the tax implications of NIL rights is of particular interest, as it offers essential guidance for student-athletes navigating this complex landscape. NIL earnings are subject to federal and state income taxes, and many athletes must also contend with self-employment taxes, including Social Security and Medicare contributions. Narotzki and Brauner emphasize the importance of financial literacy, suggesting that athletes set aside funds for quarterly estimated payments and maintain meticulous records for deductions. Business-related expenses, such as travel, equipment, and professional services, can offset tax liabilities if managed correctly. However, as the authors highlight a significant challenge—the potential impact of NIL earnings on financial aid eligibility—could disadvantage athletes from low-income backgrounds.

Regarding entity choice options for student-athletes, Narotzki and Brauner analyze these decisions and offer strategies to optimize tax liabilities by leveraging alternative tax structures such as LLCs, S Corporations, and trusts. For instance, forming an LLC allows athletes to separate their personal and professional assets, providing protection from potential legal claims arising from their business activities. Additionally, S Corporations offer the advantage of avoiding double taxation by allowing income to pass through to the shareholders' individual tax returns, which can result in significant tax savings. Trusts, particularly irrevocable trusts, can be used to safeguard long-term financial assets, ensuring that earnings from NIL activities are preserved and managed effectively.

These tax structures also streamline financial management by organizing income and expenses under a designated entity. For example, an athlete using an LLC can consolidate sponsorship revenues and training expenses, simplifying record-keeping and tax filing. Similarly, a trust can be set up to manage future educational expenses or investments, offering both flexibility and security. By adopting these structures, athletes can take advantage of tax planning opportunities that ensure their NIL earnings are utilized in the most efficient manner possible. However, these benefits must be weighed against the costs and administrative complexities associated with such tax structures, which may limit their accessibility for athletes with modest earnings. Setting up and maintaining these entities involves legal and accounting fees, as well as ongoing compliance obligations. This creates a disparity, where only athletes with substantial NIL earnings may find these strategies financially viable, leaving those with lower income from less-visible sports at a disadvantage.

The Article concludes by exploring the broader implications of NIL policies for collegiate athletics, emphasizing both the challenges and opportunities that come with this transformative shift. Narotzki and Brauner highlight that while NIL policies have introduced complexities in areas such as tax compliance, institutional regulation, and equity among athletes, these challenges are manageable with thoughtful policy design and that the benefits of NIL rights far outweigh the drawbacks.  They argue that overall NIL rights empower student-athletes by allowing them to monetize their personal brands, fostering greater financial independence and creating pathways for long-term economic stability. This paradigm shift, they suggest, represents a significant step toward rectifying historical inequities in collegiate sports.

Moreover, the authors stress the importance of ongoing dialogue and policy refinement to address emerging issues and ensure fairness. They advocate for collaborative efforts among universities, legislators, and athletic organizations to create a framework that maintains compliance while adapting to the changing dynamics of athlete rights. This forward-looking perspective situates NIL within the broader context of evolving conversations around economic equity and athlete empowerment, highlighting its potential to reshape the landscape of collegiate athletics for future generations. By framing NIL as part of a larger movement for fairness and opportunity, Narotzki and Brauner underscore its transformative potential not only for student-athletes but also for the integrity and sustainability of collegiate sports as a whole.

As for some constructive suggestions, the article provides a well-contextualized historical overview of NIL but could benefit from a comparative analysis of how other countries address athlete compensation at the amateur level. For example, in Canada, U SPORTS permits student-athletes to profit from their NIL through sponsorships and endorsements without compromising their amateur status. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, organizations like BUCS allow athletes to sign sponsorship agreements, provided they do not conflict with team policies.

The article could also benefit from delving further into strategies for athletes from less prominent sports

Narotzki and Brauner emphasize equity and accessibility recurrently in this article, as NIL opportunities are not distributed evenly among student-athletes. NIL reforms surely influence other aspects of collegiate sports, such as recruitment practices, competitive balance, and academic priorities. Those in revenue-generating sports like football and basketball often command higher earning potential, while athletes in less visible sports may struggle to secure lucrative deals. Although the authors acknowledge these disparities, they could expand their analysis to include case studies that reveal potential solutions. For example, smaller programs can maximize their NIL potential via collective branding or community-oriented partnerships. Revenue-sharing models or collective NIL agreements could help distribute earnings more equitably. Universities could also play a more active role in promoting NIL opportunities for all athletes, regardless of their sport or marketability, and provide financial literacy programs and accessible strategies to mitigate equity concerns relating to athletes from disadvantaged backgrounds and at various income levels. Universities can also create pooled resources or revenue-sharing models to mitigate disparities between high-profile and lesser-known athletes.

In fact, there are already existing group licensing, revenue-sharing models, and sponsorship bundling solutions to address such disparities in NIL earning potential between athletes in revenue-generating and less visible sports. In the United States, group licensing agreements, such as those used by EA Sports for its college football video game, allow athletes across different sports to pool their NIL rights, ensuring equitable revenue distribution regardless of individual visibility. In Australia, universities implement revenue-sharing models, redistributing profits from high-profile sports like rugby and cricket to support scholarships and resources for athletes in less-publicized sports such as swimming and track and field. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, British Universities & Colleges Sport promotes sponsorship bundling, combining athletes across various sports into collective brand deals, enabling those in less visible disciplines to benefit from the financial support and exposure generated by high-revenue sports.

All in all, this article is a comprehensive and thought-provoking analysis of a transformative moment in collegiate athletics. By examining NIL opportunities and their tax implications, Narotzki and Brauner provide a valuable resource for student-athletes, universities, and policymakers. The NIL era represents a pivotal moment in collegiate sports, and this article serves as an essential guide for navigating its complexities.