The programs where this kind of NIL is occurring are cash and marketing cows for the universities. No Kansas student is going into debt because of their basketball program and there aren't many student athletes in money-losing programs getting big NIL deals.
I would also argue that if Dickenson et al. are getting that level of NIL, that by definition, IS their market value.
Kansas is a big net money loser with a lot of subsidies from regular students, as are most of the Power 5 schools. There are only 23 schools in the country whose departments are not self-sustaining. Not only does Kansas include student fees as AD revenue, but they also receive a $2m subsidy from the academic side, they count all brand licensing money as AD revenue, and the AD has a long running deficit always covered by the school.
The argument for doing this is school marketing and the boon for local businesses in town for games.
I'm just saying the people who benefit are not the students subsidizing it. There could be great reason to subsidize college sports, but it's the WHO is paying for it that I'm focusing on. If you want the businesses of Lawrence, KS to benefit, then great; take the tax proceeds from the revenue generated and fund the AD.
Kansas is in the middle of a huge athletics fundraising push for facilities. They received $90m from the state; they want to raise $250m privately. Schools in the B12 like Oklahoma State have used private money raised for stadiums as AD revenue, and then the college (not the AD) bonded out the cost of building facilities. An excellent sleight of hand.
The real problem for Kansas is the football team. $3.4m-$4m in ticket sales for several years until 2020 (I don't have latest numbers).
I would also say NIL is so new that you don't actually know if there will be a dropoff in athletics donations. My guess is that the people giving athletic donations are the same people providing the NIL funding, so there will be a drop off.
