Understanding the Difference Between NIL and Collectives for College Football Players

The landscape of college athletics has undergone a seismic shift with the advent of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities. For decades, student-athletes were unable to profit from their athletic talents beyond scholarships, but in 2021, the NCAA opened the door for athletes to monetize their personal brands. Alongside this change came the emergence of Collectives, an innovative but often misunderstood concept in the NIL ecosystem.

For student-athletes, understanding these opportunities is essential for navigating the complexities of modern college sports. This blog will explore the key differences between NIL and Collectives, demystifying their roles and impacts. Whether you’re seeking to enhance your personal brand or maximize your earning potential, knowing how these systems work can be the first step toward achieving your goals.

Out of the 362 NCAA Division I member schools, 213 have established Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) collectives. Meanwhile, 149 schools have not yet formed these groups.

---

What is NIL?

NIL refers to the ability of student-athletes to earn money by leveraging their name, image, and likeness. This change became possible when the NCAA lifted its long-standing ban on such compensation in July 2021. NIL allows athletes to pursue sponsorship deals, monetize their social media presence, endorse products, and even charge fees for appearances and autographs.

The essence of NIL lies in personal branding. Athletes can secure endorsement deals with companies that align with their image or values. For example, a football player with a strong social media following might partner with a local sportswear brand or national food chain. These agreements often involve promoting the brand through posts, commercials, or public appearances.

Importantly, NIL deals are individual, meaning the opportunities depend largely on the athlete’s personal marketability. This puts the power in the hands of the student-athlete, but it also requires them to actively build their brand and manage relationships with businesses and agents. NIL has turned many athletes into young entrepreneurs, providing them with real-world business experience alongside their athletic careers.

---

What are Collectives?

While NIL deals focus on individual athletes, Collectives are group-based initiatives that aim to support entire teams or communities of athletes.

Collectives are typically formed by boosters, alumni, and other supporters who pool funds to facilitate NIL opportunities for student-athletes. These organizations operate as intermediaries, helping to distribute funds or negotiate group-level deals. For example, a Collective associated with a college football program might arrange for multiple players to promote a local business in exchange for compensation. Unlike traditional NIL deals, which require athletes to market themselves, Collectives often bring opportunities directly to the players.

Roles and Contributions:

• Boosters and Alumni: They are often at the forefront of forming these collectives, leveraging their passion and financial resources to support their alma mater’s athletic programs.
• Local Businesses: These businesses contribute financially and benefit from the promotional activities carried out by the athletes.

These collectives not only pool funds but also negotiate group-level deals, bringing opportunities directly to players. For example, a Collective associated with a college football program might arrange for multiple players to promote a local business in exchange for compensation.

Unlike traditional NIL deals, which require athletes to market themselves, Collectives often streamline the process by bringing opportunities directly to the players. This arrangement allows student-athletes to engage in a variety of activities, such as signing autographs, attending events, or appearing in commercials, thereby maximizing their earning potential in a structured manner.

NIL collectives have become a crucial aspect of college sports by establishing a legal and organized method for athletes to benefit from their name, image, and likeness. These collectives are widespread, with almost every Division 1 school having at least one, particularly those with strong sports programs. They are commonly established by alumni and other supporters who seek to support their alma mater’s athletes in a transparent manner.

How Collectives Connect Athletes to Opportunities

1. Pooling Resources: Collectives gather funds from a variety of sources, including athletic department boosters, affluent alumni, and local businesses. This diverse financial backing allows them to provide substantial support to student-athletes.
2. Diverse Activities: Athletes can receive compensation for a broad range of activities facilitated by collectives, such as:
   • Signing autographs
   • Attending events and engaging with fans
   • Appearing in commercials for local businesses
3. Direct Engagement: Unlike traditional methods where athletes had to seek out opportunities themselves, collectives proactively bring deals to players, streamlining the process and enhancing the athletes’ exposure to lucrative endorsements.

Through these mechanisms, NIL collectives have transformed the landscape for college athletes, offering them legitimate and significant ways to capitalize on their athletic prowess and popularity.

One common form of Collective is the school-specific, donor-driven collective. In this model, athletic booster money is pooled and allocated to a school’s athletes in return for sponsorship or endorsement agreements. These agreements may require athletes to engage in specific activities, such as promoting a business or participating in community events, thereby creating structured and mutually beneficial partnerships.

There are two main types of Collectives:

1. Team-Specific Collectives: These focus on supporting athletes from a particular team or school. They are often backed by prominent alumni and dedicated to enhancing the team’s competitive edge by attracting and retaining top talent.
2. Community-Focused Collectives: These aim to promote broader community engagement, sometimes partnering athletes with local charities or businesses to strengthen ties between the team and its supporters.

Collectives serve a dual purpose: they help athletes earn NIL income and foster a sense of unity by creating shared opportunities. However, their centralized nature can also raise questions about fairness, as the distribution of funds may vary depending on the Collective’s priorities. This is particularly true for school-specific, donor-driven collectives, where the focus and distribution are tailored to the needs and goals of a specific institution.

---

According to Opendorse, the 2023-24 fundraising tiers for NIL Collectives have been categorized into several distinct groups based on annual funding amounts:

Fundraising Tiers:

1. Top Power 5 Programs
   These elite teams boast a fundraising capacity exceeding $10 million annually.
2. Middle Tier Power 5 Programs
   Falling in this category, these programs raise between $5 million and $10 million each year.
3. Lower Power 5 and Upper Group of 5
   Programs in this group manage to gather funds ranging from $1 million to $5 million annually.
4. Middle Group of 5 and Upper Division 1 Programs
   Annually, these programs raise between $250,000 and $1 million.
5. Remaining Division 1 Programs
   These programs secure annual funding between $100,000 and $250,000.

These tiers represent the varied financial landscapes across different athletic programs, highlighting the disparities in fund sizes they manage each year.

Estimated NIL Collective Funding Levels

Based on 2022 booster support, we have developed estimates for the 2023-24 fundraising levels for NIL collectives at public universities. These projections rely on the existing booster and fan support at each school. Private institutions are not included due to insufficient data. Our methodology, which is detailed in a separate disclosure, outlines how we arrived at these figures.

High Estimates vs. Real-World Examples

Initially, we believed our estimates might be optimistic. However, further analysis shows consistency with actual targets and achievements by some universities. For instance, the University of Tennessee’s collective aims for a $25 million goal, considering it an achievable target. Ohio State’s head football coach mentioned a requirement of $13 million in NIL funds solely to sustain the football roster. Expanding this to account for all sports using the Power 5 average, Ohio State would need nearly $20 million, aligning closely with our projections.

Additional cases reinforce the reliability of our estimates. For example, Auburn has reportedly secured over $13 million, and Ole Miss over $10 million in NIL funding, both surpassing our predicted figures.

Variability Among Schools

Contrastingly, there are collectives that fall short of these financial targets. Michigan State’s primary collective recently halted most of its football player contracts due to limited backing, evidenced by fewer than 100 subscriptions. The university has faced negative publicity and this could have impacted their financial efforts. Similarly, Northwestern acknowledged missing its initial $3 million goal, a shortfall potentially linked to the coaching staff changes.

National Averages and Perspectives

The CEO of Student-Athlete NIL estimates that the average collective nationwide raises between $3 to $5 million. This aligns closely with our calculated national average of around $3.9 million for all 211 collectives in our records. Overall, our methodology and resulting estimates appear reasonable and corroborate real-world outcomes.

Key Differences Between NIL and Collectives

Understanding the distinctions between NIL and Collectives is crucial for student-athletes seeking to capitalize on these opportunities. Here are the key differences:

1. Individual vs. Group Structure
   NIL deals are typically one-on-one agreements between an athlete and a business, emphasizing personal branding. In contrast, Collectives operate at a group level, offering opportunities to multiple athletes simultaneously.
2. Control and Autonomy
   With NIL, athletes have greater control over their deals, allowing them to choose partnerships that align with their goals. Collectives, on the other hand, manage the negotiation and distribution process, limiting individual input but reducing the burden on athletes.
3. Sources of Income
   NIL income primarily comes from commercial brands seeking to leverage an athlete’s public profile. Collective funds, however, are usually sourced from boosters, alumni, and other stakeholders with a vested interest in supporting the team.
4. Purpose and Goals
   NIL empowers athletes to build their personal brands and profit from their unique identity. Collectives aim to foster team cohesion and ensure that all athletes, regardless of individual marketability, have access to financial opportunities.

Understanding Fundraising Discrepancies in NIL Collectives

When evaluating the financial health of NIL collectives across different schools, discrepancies in fundraising significantly influence overall estimates. Some universities, like Michigan State, have experienced challenges, with their primary collective pausing contracts due to insufficient financial support. This arose from garnering fewer than 100 subscriptions, reflecting local issues such as adverse publicity and broader challenges.

Similarly, other universities, such as Northwestern, have also fallen short of fundraising goals, missing their inaugural target of $3 million. This shortfall was exacerbated by the recent dismissal of a well-liked coach, impacting supporter contributions and engagement.

However, these discrepancies are not universal. The CEO of Student-Athlete NIL provided insights, suggesting that typical collectives nationwide raise between $3 million and $5 million. This aligns closely with our average calculation of nearly $3.9 million across numerous collectives.

To conclude, while some universities struggle with fundraising due to specific local conditions, the overall estimation process for NIL collectives remains generally reliable and consistent with national trends. This balance reinforces the credibility of the existing methodology despite occasional under- or overestimations at the local level.

---

Benefits and Challenges for Student-Athletes

Both NIL and Collectives offer tremendous benefits for student-athletes, including financial security, professional networking, and valuable business experience. NIL allows athletes to take control of their personal brand, while Collectives provide structured support and opportunities that might otherwise be inaccessible.

As this emerging market for NIL deals for college athletes continues to expand, we expect to see many more types of collectives. These collectives open up fantastic new opportunities for college athletes. However, there have been and will continue to be some growing pains.

Managing NIL deals requires time and effort, which can compete with the demands of academics and athletics. Additionally, disparities in NIL earnings may create tension among teammates. For Collectives, transparency and fairness in fund distribution can be contentious issues.

To navigate these complexities, student-athletes should seek guidance from advisors, coaches, and legal professionals. By doing so, they can maximize their opportunities while minimizing potential pitfalls. As the market continues to evolve, keeping informed and prepared will be key to successfully leveraging these opportunities.

However, these opportunities also come with challenges. Managing NIL deals requires time and effort, which can compete with the demands of academics and athletics. Additionally, disparities in NIL earnings may create tension among teammates. For Collectives, transparency and fairness in fund distribution can be contentious issues.

To navigate these complexities, student-athletes should seek guidance from advisors, coaches, and legal professionals. By doing so, they can maximize their opportunities while minimizing potential pitfalls.

Meeting fundraising goals has been a tough challenge for several schools’ NIL collectives. While many expected to hit high fundraising marks, some have struggled significantly. For instance, Michigan State’s main collective had to suspend various contracts with football players due to insufficient financial support, with less than 100 subscribers. This lack of funding could be partly attributed to the school’s negative publicity over recent incidents.

Similarly, other collectives faced hurdles in achieving their financial targets. Northwestern’s collective announced it would not reach its initial $3 million goal, possibly influenced by the firing of a beloved coach. These instances highlight that optimistic predictions might have overestimated some collectives’ fundraising capabilities. As a result, navigating public perception and maintaining strong community and alumni engagement seem crucial for these groups to succeed financially.

---

Conclusion and Takeaways

The rise of NIL and Collectives has transformed the financial landscape of college sports, offering unprecedented opportunities for student-athletes to benefit from their talents. While NIL deals emphasize individual autonomy and branding, Collectives create a team-centered approach to financial support.

By understanding the differences between these two systems, student-athletes can make informed decisions that align with their goals. Whether you’re looking to build your brand or participate in Collective-supported initiatives, the key is to stay educated, proactive, and prepared to seize the opportunities available to you.

ADDITIONAL RELEVANT INFORMATION

What are some examples of business that have partnered with NIL collectives for college athletes?

Several well-known companies have formed partnerships with NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) collectives supporting college athletes. Some notable examples include industry giants like major retail brands, insurance firms, telecommunications providers, and athletic wear companies. These collaborations often aim to boost brand visibility while offering athletes new revenue opportunities.

What was the impact of the National Collegiate Athletic Association vs Alston Supreme Court decision on college athletes’ ability to generate revenue?

The National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston Supreme Court decision significantly transformed college athletes’ ability to earn money, opening a new era of opportunities. Before this ruling, athletes faced strict restrictions against profiting from their own name, image, and likeness (NIL). The decision dismantled these barriers, enabling athletes to monetize their personal brands without risking their eligibility to compete.

As a result, legislation like the California Fair Pay to Play Act emerged, along with similar laws in other states, giving athletes the freedom to secure sponsorship and endorsement deals. This landmark decision has not only empowered athletes to negotiate contracts, thereby enhancing their financial prospects while still pursuing their education and athletic careers, but it has also paved the way for a more equal landscape in college sports commercialization.

With this shift, college athletes are no longer on the sidelines of the revenue they help generate, allowing them to step into a more equitable playing field.

Understanding Marketplace Collectives vs. Donor-driven Collectives

Marketplace Collectives:
Marketplace collectives serve as a hub where athletes can collaborate directly with businesses, often local ones, to forge Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements. These platforms streamline the connection process, enabling businesses to discover and partner with athletes whose brand aligns with their marketing goals. Essentially, marketplace collectives function like a matchmaker, ensuring that both parties can negotiate deals that are mutually beneficial.

Donor-driven Collectives:
In contrast, donor-driven collectives are primarily fueled by financial contributions from supporters or fans, aimed at benefiting the athletes directly. The funds gathered are typically allocated for specific purposes, such as scholarships, training, or other athlete-related expenses. This model focuses more on pooling resources from contributors rather than facilitating commercial partnerships.

Key Differences:

• Purpose and Function:
  • Marketplace collectives focus on commercial partnerships, connecting athletes with businesses for marketing and promotional opportunities.
  • Donor-driven collectives are centered on financial support, collecting funds from fans or supporters for athletes’ use without necessarily involving business collaborations.
• Revenue Generation:
  • Marketplace collectives generate revenue through direct business deals, while donor-driven collectives rely on donations and contributions from individuals and entities.
• Interaction and Engagement:
  • Marketplace collectives emphasize business interactions, creating a platform for ongoing commercial engagement.
  • Donor-driven collectives emphasize community support and investment in athletes’ growth without commercial transactions.

Both types can coexist within the same organization, offering a diversified approach to supporting and promoting athletes.

How did college athletes receive money from boosters prior to the legalization of NIL rights?

Before college athletes could legally profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, financial support from boosters often occurred under the radar. These transactions were discreet, taking the form of informal agreements where wealthy supporters of a university’s sports program would reward athletes with cash. This exchange typically involved the booster directly handing the athlete an envelope filled with money as a gesture of appreciation for representing the school in competitions. Such clandestine arrangements allowed top athletes to receive compensation without formal acknowledgment or oversight.

Understanding the Yoke Collective and Its Role in Player-Led NIL Opportunities

A Yoke collective is a dynamic platform designed to empower student-athletes by allowing them to create and manage their own name, image, and likeness (NIL) initiatives. Unlike traditional models, where external entities often lead the charge, Yoke places athletes at the helm. This innovative approach ensures that the athletes themselves are the driving force behind their collectives.

How the Yoke Collective Operates

1. Athlete Empowerment: At its core, Yoke equips student-athletes with the tools they need to directly engage with their fan base. This direct connection allows athletes to build personal brand opportunities that resonate with their unique audience.
2. Platform Infrastructure: Yoke provides the necessary infrastructure to facilitate these connections, offering a streamlined interface for managing interactions and transactions. This framework supports the seamless operation of athlete-led initiatives.
3. Revenue Model: To sustain the platform, Yoke maintains a revenue-sharing agreement, taking a 25% cut of the revenues generated via their system. This fee ensures that the athletes have access to robust technology and support without upfront expenses.

In essence, the Yoke collective transforms the traditional NIL landscape by flipping the script. It places athletes in control of their branding decisions, fostering a more personal and engaging experience for both athletes and fans.

Here’s a breakdown of the projected Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) funding amounts by conference for the Power 5 schools over the next two years. The anticipated average funding per school highlights the significant financial investments into college athletics.

2023 NIL Collective Funding Estimates

• ACC: This conference is expected to generate approximately $149 million, averaging about $9.9 million per school.
• Big 12: The estimation sits around $115 million, with an average of $8.2 million per member institution.
• Big Ten: Schools here are projected to amass roughly $150 million, translating to an average of $10.7 million each.
• Pac-12: With a total of about $78 million, individual schools can expect an average of $6.5 million.
• SEC: Dominating the chart, the SEC is projected to pull in around $186 million, with a per-school average of $13.3 million.

2024 NIL Collective Funding Projections

The landscape may see some shifts in the following year:

• ACC: Projected funding drops slightly to about $8.9 million per school.
• Big 12: Anticipated funding decreases, with schools receiving around $7.2 million on average.
• Big Ten: Funding is projected to average $9.7 million per institution.
• Pac-12: With significant changes anticipated, the average funding sharply declines to approximately $3.2 million.
• SEC: Holding strong, the SEC’s projected average rises to about $13.9 million per school.

Overall, these projections underline the substantial financial contributions towards student-athletes, averaging nearly $10 million per institution annually across these major conferences.

Understanding Average Funding and Allocation in NIL Collectives

When examining the average funding per Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) collective, it’s essential to break it down by group type and see how the money is distributed among popular sports. This provides insight into how resources are prioritized in collegiate athletic programs.

Group Breakdown

1. Power Five Schools:
   • Average Funding: Each collective receives approximately $9.8 million.
   • Allocation:
     • Football: 66% of the total funding is directed towards football, highlighting its dominance in these sports programs.
     • Men’s Basketball: 24% goes to men’s basketball, reflecting its significant yet secondary role.
     • Other Sports: The remaining 10% is spread across various other athletic programs.
2. Group of Five Schools:
   • Average Funding: These schools see an average of around $1.45 million per collective.
   • Allocation:
     • Football: Funding for football constitutes 50% of the total, indicating a strong focus but less so than in Power Five schools.
     • Men’s Basketball: Receives 37%, showing a relatively higher emphasis compared to Power Five allocations.
     • Other Sports: 13% is dedicated to all other competitive sports.
3. Other NCAA Division I Schools:
   • Average Funding: Collectives here average about $738,844.
   • Allocation:
     • Football: Gets 52% of the finances, still a majority but more balanced.
     • Men’s Basketball: Accounts for 32%, displaying its importance.
     • Other Sports: 16% is allocated to various other sports activities.

Overall Averages

Across all schools, the allocation of NIL collective funding reveals a pattern where football consistently garners the largest portion, followed by men’s basketball, then other sports. This distribution signifies the hierarchical importance of these sports within U.S. Collegiate programs, particularly in terms of media engagement and revenue generation potential.

The estimated funding amounts for NIL collectives provide an intriguing comparison to insights shared by industry experts and coaches. For instance, the University of Tennessee aims for a $25 million collective fund, a target they consider very achievable. This ambition contrasts with Ohio State’s head football coach’s statement about needing $13 million in NIL funds to sustain their roster, aligning closely with the broader $20 million estimate required across all Ohio State sports.

Several universities have notably exceeded expectations. Auburn has reportedly secured over $13 million, and Ole Miss more than $10 million, surpassing initial projections. However, not all programs reach such heights. Michigan State has faced challenges, struggling to garner support and halting many contracts due to fewer than 100 subscriptions, a stark contrast to others in the field.

Other institutions like Northwestern have fallen short of their targets, with the dismissal of a popular coach contributing to their inability to meet a $3 million goal. This highlights the variability in funding achievements across different programs.

In summary, the CEO of Student-Athlete NIL suggests that most collectives across the nation raise between $3 million and $5 million. This aligns closely with the calculated average of about $3.9 million based on data from 211 collectives, suggesting that while there’s variability, the estimates are generally in line with real-world fundraising results.

Impact of Revenue Sharing on NIL Collectives’ Funding

Starting in the 2025-26 academic year, the landscape of funding for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) collectives is poised for a substantial shift. This change comes as educational institutions begin implementing revenue-sharing models, allowing them to allocate funds directly to athletes.

Reduction in Collective Funding: NIL collectives, which have historically played a crucial role in funneling financial support to student-athletes, will see a decrease in average funding. As schools begin to compensate athletes directly—up to a limit of $20.5 million annually—the dependence on these collectives diminishes.

Financial Shifts for Educational Institutions: With new financial responsibilities, schools will likely refocus their fundraising efforts:

• Booster Contributions: Traditionally, booster donations have been directed to these collectives. However, to manage their new financial obligations efficiently, schools are expected to redirect these contributions back to themselves. This strategy will aid in covering costs associated with revenue sharing and potentially increased scholarship expenses.

In essence, the emergence of revenue sharing marks a significant change in how college sports funding is structured, gradually reducing the necessity of NIL collectives while increasing the direct engagement between athletes and their institutions.

The distribution of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) collectives varies significantly across different tiers of NCAA Division I schools. All 70 schools within the esteemed “Power” conferences have NIL collectives in place to support their athletes. This represents a complete sweep for schools in this category.

In contrast, the “Group of 5” schools show a little more variation. Out of the 60 institutions categorized under this group, 50 have established NIL collectives, while 10 have yet to set them up. This indicates that while the majority are on board, a subset lags behind in adopting these support structures.

The landscape is vastly different for the remaining Division I schools. Among this larger group of 232 schools, only 93 have organized NIL collectives. This leaves 139 schools without these arrangements, highlighting a substantial portion of institutions still navigating the NIL transition.

Overall, out of 362 NCAA Division I schools, 213 have implemented NIL collectives, while 149 do not. The data reveals a clear divide between the influential Power 5, their supportive Group of 5 counterparts, and the more diverse array of other Division I schools.