NIL - How to Measure the Unmeasurable

[Sifaka]

“ NCAA Player Pay Deal Asks Deloitte to Measure the Unmeasurable
WHAT’S a name, image, and likeness worth? Student-athletes will receive a realistic amount for NIL rights under their $2.8 billion settlement with the NCAA, but measuring the value may prove challenging even for the world’s largest accounting firm, Kyle Jahnerreports.

• The House v. NCAA settlement approved this month calls for Deloitte to set up a clearinghouse to analyze endorsements, partnerships, and other branding deals to ensure athletes get no more than “fair market value” for NIL rights, instead of sums inflated by recruiting slush funds run by team boosters.
• Branding deals worth $600 or more will feed into NIL Go, software built by Deloitte to assess market value. Rejected deals can be reworked or appealed to the College Sports Commission, an entity established by major conferences, and after that, to third-party arbiters.
• But the model will depend in part on subjective variables, incomplete industry metrics on private contracts, and skewed college athlete data, attorneys say. A player’s sport, position, gender, skill, program, conference, media market, and obligations all impact value, as do subjective factors like appearance, personality, and social media following.
• Former NFL safety Troy Polamalu’s long flowing hair, for example, enhanced his value as a shampoo spokesman, said sports and IP attorney Philip Sheng of Venable, himself a former Stanford University tennis player. Sheng said the biggest outstanding question is how Deloitte will weigh the various factors. “We are in a black box scenario,” he said. Read More “

Source:

The Brief from Bloomberg Law​ Friday, June 13, 2025​

For those, like me, trained in economic and market analysis, “fair market value” is a basic concept. It's usually grounded in the price point at which a buyer and seller agree to a transaction. If high priced bean counters—
Sorry, Deloitte & Co., skilled accountants—can assign consistent values to all of the intangibles listed above, and consistently apply those to every NIL deal that comes before them, then

(1) I'm a monkey's uncle, and (2) the courts will be clogged with young men and women who beg to differ.

The forthcoming comedy routine has been brought to you by the NCAA—National Comedic Accounting Association.

 

[Bone Dog]

This reeks of restraint of trade even apart from the program's ability to assess market values. Any individual player -- like Azzi, for example -- who gets endorsements independently of their schools athletic program can challenge any adverse finding from this commission. Merely enrolling in school cannot mean that a student is legally prohibited from engaging in legitimate trade unrelated to the school, or that they must seek NCAA approval for it.

 

[Sifaka]

Merely enrolling in school cannot mean that a students is legally prohibited from engaging in legal trade unrelated to the school, of that must seek NCAA approval for it.

True. And of course the schools will argue, unsuccessfully, that NIL value derives from participation in school athletics. To which, for example, a certain Ms Bueckers will cite her hundreds of thousands of social media followers prior to enrolling in a university.

The House settlement is risible. As I have suggested elsewhere, the settlement ignores Title IX. Litigation, anyone?!

 

[Bone Dog]

of course the schools will argue, unsuccessfully, that NIL value derives from participation in school athletics.

I am confident we'll hear precisely such things claimed in the media. But the problem with it is that every school's program value derives equally (or more) from what the players create for it. This is the fundamental paradox of education: the teacher improves the student but the student also improves the teacher. I think Plato may have said something about this.

 

[WiseWillie]

The NCAA has made an enduring contribution to the "Full Employment of Talent Agents, Accountants and Lawyers Fund". Oh, and they make rules to regulate athletic programs and ensure fair and safe competition as well as the well-being of "student"- athletes. Throughout the years courts have traditionally recognized the NCAA as an important entity maintaining the "amateur status" of intercollegiate athletics. That's the past. Courts will be forced to reevaluate this role as the cat is out of the bag with NIL $ eclipsing the other original purposes. How much longer will the NCAA as originally conceived survive?

 

[oldude]

While I agree that assigning a market value to an NIL deal will be an extremely difficult task, keep in mind that a lot of NIL deals from alumni collectives were effectively for nothing other than the rights to set up deals using an athletes NIL. So big time college football program collectives were paying O-Lineman $60-75 k for NIL deals that essentially was simply a pay for play deal.

The NCAA settlement should effectively provide the base salary directly from the university to the athletes. The outside deals are more problematic. If you look at Chavez deal with OK WBB or Canadae’s deal with Texas Tech baseball, it’s going to be interesting to see how Deloitte determines whether or not a 7 figure deal is truly market based.

 

[Bone Dog]

The fundamental value proposition of college is that students are recruited with the prospect of learning and developing life skills. Some of them, including athletes, receive tuition waivers and stipends for living expenses. It would seem outrageous for an institution to require students to forego any and all opportunities to earn money on the side. The only limitation I can make sense of is that students on scholarship must maintain good grades. The proposition becomes even more outrageous when the university actually makes money by showcasing the students while preventing them from profiting in a similar way. The conflict of interest here has been intransigent as long as the NCAA has existed.

One way to begin resolving the conflict might be to eliminate athletic scholarships altogether. In their place, student-athletes could be recruited with the assistance of NIL collectives who would help them earn money to cover the costs of tuition room and board. In such an environment there would be no need to measure NIL deals or regulate their earnings. This would extricate the universities from much of what is unseemly in the business of college sports. And the NCAA could return to the core tasks of arranging competition and negotiating things like TV contracts. The need for the House settlement would also be obviated, other than settling the question of whether students should share in those profits.

 

[oldude]

The fundamental value proposition of college is that students are recruited with the prospect of learning and developing life skills. Some of them, including athletes, receive tuition waivers and stipends for living expenses. It would seem outrageous for an institution to require students to forego any and all opportunities to earn money on the side. The only limitation I can make sense of is that students on scholarship must maintain good grades. The proposition becomes even more outrageous when the university actually makes money by showcasing the students while preventing them from profiting in a similar way. The conflict of interest here has been intransigent as long as the NCAA has existed.

One way to begin resolving the conflict might be to eliminate athletic scholarships altogether. In their place, student-athletes could be recruited with the assistance of NIL collectives who would help them earn money to cover the costs of tuition room and board. In such an environment there would be no need to measure NIL deals or regulate their earnings. This would extricate the universities from much of what is unseemly in the business of college sports. And the NCAA could return to the core tasks of arranging competition and negotiating things like TV contracts. The need for the House settlement would also be obviated, other than settling the question of whether students should share in those profits.

That’s a great idea for the big time programs in P4 conferences that earn huge revenue from tv contracts and ticket sales. But what do you do if you’re a member of the Sunbelt or Missouri Valley conference, struggling to pay your bills?

 

[Sifaka]

One way to begin resolving the conflict might be to eliminate athletic scholarships altogether. In their place, student-athletes could be recruited with the assistance of NIL collectives who would help them earn money to cover the costs of tuition room and board.

How much does this differ, if at all, from the way the Ivy League colleges and universities work? They do not offer athletic scholarships, and do, in most cases, guarantee admission regardless of ability to pay tuition. I don't know what they do or don't do in regard to NIL.

 

[BBallF]

True. And of course the schools will argue, unsuccessfully, that NIL value derives from participation in school athletics. To which, for example, a certain Ms Bueckers will cite her hundreds of thousands of social media followers prior to enrolling in a university.

The House settlement is risible. As I have suggested elsewhere, the settlement ignores Title IX. Litigation, anyone?!

Yes, I see it. As I understand it, women athletes have already appealed the settlement on that basis represented by the 75% football, 15% mens basketball, 5% womens basketball, and 5% all other sports division.

 

[Bigboote]

They’re gonna have to add a few million more for the lawyers. Or make it 80% lawyers, 5% football, 5% each men’s and women’s basketball, 5% other.

 

[WiseWillie]

The fundamental value proposition of college is that students are recruited with the prospect of learning and developing life skills. Some of them, including athletes, receive tuition waivers and stipends for living expenses. It would seem outrageous for an institution to require students to forego any and all opportunities to earn money on the side. The only limitation I can make sense of is that students on scholarship must maintain good grades. The proposition becomes even more outrageous when the university actually makes money by showcasing the students while preventing them from profiting in a similar way. The conflict of interest here has been intransigent as long as the NCAA has existed.

One way to begin resolving the conflict might be to eliminate athletic scholarships altogether. In their place, student-athletes could be recruited with the assistance of NIL collectives who would help them earn money to cover the costs of tuition room and board. In such an environment there would be no need to measure NIL deals or regulate their earnings. This would extricate the universities from much of what is unseemly in the business of college sports. And the NCAA could return to the core tasks of arranging competition and negotiating things like TV contracts. The need for the House settlement would also be obviated, other than settling the question of whether students should share in those profits.

Besides removing athletic scholarships altogether with NIL collectives taking over the financial obligation to the "student" athletes, it probably would also open the door to athletes no longer being required to actually attend the university or classes. They would for all purposes be contracted under a sports participation agreement with the collectives to play a particular sport for a minimum number of years and only under the banner of the particular school. The collectives would enter into contracts with the schools for sharing of media rights, facilities usage and more. Far fetched?

 

[Bone Dog]

Besides removing athletic scholarships altogether with NIL collectives taking over the financial obligation to the "student" athletes, it probably would also open the door to athletes no longer being required to actually attend the university or classes. They would for all purposes be contracted under a sports participation agreement with the collectives to play a particular sport for a minimum number of years and only under the banner of the particular school. The collectives would enter into contracts with the schools for sharing of media rights, facilities usage and more. Far fetched?

This is not what I would wish for, but it may be inevitable. In fact, the current situation has already twisted college sports into a minor league for various professional sports. What fans currently love about sports like WCBB is the mixture of talent ands striving mixed together with the nostalgic associations of the student experience of college life. This is all illusory, but it's a key element of the product marketed to us by the NCAA.

As @Sifaka mentioned above, the no-scholarship model would be a hybrid of what the Ivies already do combined with all the compromises needed to keep booster-based collectives interested in funding the students. Not every school will be able to compete in such a configuration. But I expect plenty will. Fans may be disappointed by the level of competition, if it begins to resemble the Ivies too closely.

 

[reelfan]

This is a GOLD MINE for lawyers !!

 

[Steelerone]

All this does is give credence to the old proverb, "The answer to any of your questions is money."