Student Survey Suggests NIL Money Does Not Cause Locker Room Problems, But We Still Need To Know More

According to an article on On3NIL, a survey of more than 1,000 college athletes revealed that only 8% witnessed rifts or other problems resulting from name, image and likeness (NIL) earnings. The 8% finding is significant because coaches and pundits critical of NIL compensation for college athletes often cited to how the introduction thereof would cause problems for team chemistry.

Bill Carter of Student-Athlete Insights, a company specializing in NIL education and consulting, conducted the study, which had the largest number of participants of any NIL-related survey of college athletes since the NCAA lifted its restraints on NIL compensation in 2021. The findings from Carter’s poll fly in the face of fear mongering from college coaches such as Mike Gundy of Oklahoma State University and Geno Auriemma of the University of Connecticut who have publicly predicted that college athlete NIL compensation will cause chemistry problems for teams. Even ESPN commentator Fran Fraschilla chimed in with the claim that college teams were starting to crack based on NIL-related jealousy.

The fear of chemistry problems mongered by college coaches and pundits, however, should be checked by the fact that professional teams are able to maintain chemistry despite pay disparities amongst players. So it stands to reason that the same thing could happen on the college level.

Yet, another NIL-related claim persists that also needs to be tested for the purpose of validation or rejection. The relevant claim originates from a finding in O’Bannon v. NCAA and posits that NIL compensation would drive a wedge between college athletes and other students that prevents the athletes from integrating into their academic environments. In a 2014 decision, the Ninth Circuit recognized that NCAA rules prohibiting college athletes from being paid large sums of money for the use of their NIL served an important function by preventing the creation of a “social wedge” between college athletes and the rest of the student body. The court believed that this wedge would produce resentment that prevents college athletes from being fully integrated into their academic environments. It is important to note that the Ninth Circuit did not rely on any empirical evidence in reaching the conclusion that athlete compensation would drive a wedge between college athletes and their peers.

Therefore, the claim that NIL compensation would cause integration problems on campus needs to be tested, arguably even more so than the fears related to team chemistry. The wedge argument is even more problematic because it still holds legal force in that it serves as a pro-competitive justification under antitrust law for restraining athlete compensation. Typically, caps on compensation that are not the product of collective bargaining operate as illegal restraints on trade in violation of antitrust law. The court in O’Bannon, however, identified the integration argument as one of two pro-competitive justifications for protecting the NCAA’s restrictive rules —the preservation of amateurism being the other.

While college athletes are now permitted to be paid for the use of their NIL by sponsors and collectives, the NCAA still enforces rules that block schools from paying athletes directly for their participation in intercollegiate athletics. This prohibition prevents college athletes from earning their fair share from the billion dollar industry generated mostly from the use of their NIL in media deals for college sports.

While the “wedge” or “integration” argument is not the strongest or even primary reason for judicial tolerance of NCAA compensation restraints on college athletes, the argument remains relevant and therefore needs to be proven or dismissed based on measured data. Accordingly, there exists a need for a study similar to the one conducted by Carter on team chemistry that examines athlete integration into their academic communities.

While an investigation into athlete integration may be difficult to design and conduct, the fact remains that one is needed because rules that restrict college athletes from what they have earned through their efforts should not be grounded in fear, they should be supported by sound data.