In 2021 NCAA policy changed to allow college athletes to monetize their name, image, and likeness (NIL). And ever since, there’s been no shortage of criticism levied against the NIL system, including complaints that major athletic departments are now at the beck and call of boosters and jabs about money-hungry athletes. But at Front Office Sports’ Future of Sports: Sea Change in College Sports event on Wednesday, a panel of NIL collective leaders pushed back against what they described as “these negative narratives.”
“The notion that college athletes are simply chasing money nowadays — and that collectives are the enablers for this — is simply not true,” said Jonathan Gombinski, managing director of the Canes Connection, the University of Miami’s NIL collective. (Collectives are independent organizations that can serve several purposes, including fundraising, facilitating deals on behalf of athletes, and advising athletes on how to monetize their personal brands.)
He went on to explain that a few high-profile, big money-induced recruitments — like Michigan’s recent flipping of top-ranked prospect Bryce Underwood through a reported eight-figure NIL deal — have been “overcovered” and are not reflective of how a majority of collectives are working to support student-athletes.
Gombinski said the lion’s share of his time is spent negotiating brand deal contracts on behalf of Miami athletes, the money from which most players use to “help pay family mortgages or put into retirement accounts, which isn’t highlighted enough.”
Ben Chase, director of NIL Strategy at the University of Florida, noted that there are plenty of athletes who have little interest in capitalizing on their name, image, and likeness: “Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean everyone wants to do it. It takes time and effort, and it all depends on how much athletes want to put into it,” he said.
Still, negative stereotypes about NIL collectives are rampant. Russell White, president of the Collective Association, a trade group founded in 2023 that represents dozens of member schools, attributes this to the category’s relative infancy. Many collective roles have existed for less than four years, and people in those positions have been fighting pay-for-play criticisms (among others) for almost as long.
Part of The Collective Association’s mission is to address this public relations problem.
“Collectives are often made out to be responsible for the entirety of the chaos that currently exists within the NIL system,” said White. “We’re here to correct that narrative and educate fans about what collectives actually do.”
The group also functions as a way for collectives to share best practices, identify bad-faith actors and coordinate lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C., and around the country aimed at “securing the future of NIL,” White said.
During the panel, Gombinski, Chase, and White stressed that — while students “absolutely deserve” the influx of capital made available to them through NIL collectives — more traditional factors like campus lifestyle, available majors, and depth charts still have a huge impact on players’ college decisions, whether as initial recruits or transfer portal participants.
Another aspect of collective work that gets overblown, according to all three leaders? Their perceived influence over coaching staffs.
“It’s a lazy argument to say donors and collectives have final input on rosters,” said White.
“Coaches are alphas. They’re not ceding control of their programs and personnel decisions to anyone unless they’re absolutely forced,” Gombinski added.
