Since the introduction of NIL to college athletics in 2021, college athletes have signed endorsement deals worth millions of dollars before ever stepping foot into the pro leagues. This was following the Supreme Court’s Alston decision, which paved the way for athletes to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness. While it was first intended to grant athletes financial agency without losing eligibility, the landscape of NIL has shifted into a model similar to free agency in professional sports, but lacks regulations of a salary cap or a draft, which unevens the playing field for schools hugely. Today, college athletics, especially college football, is defined by a growing problem: Big “Power 4” schools are able to hoard talent through sizable financial reserves, while smaller schools are unable to provide similar levels of NIL money to athletes, and thus aren’t able to compete with bigger schools with their rosters filled with 4-5 star recruits with immense amounts of talent.

Firstly, according to the National College Athletics Association, Power 4 schools spent an average of $20,000,000 a year on their athletes, while Group of 5 schools spent an average of $3,400,000 on their athletes. In comparison, Ohio State University’s star wide receiver, Jeremiah Smith, is estimated to make around $4,200,000 in endorsements. This shows the immense disparity between schools in big conferences such as the Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and ACC, and schools in smaller, less known conferences such as the American, Sun Belt, MAC, and Mountain West. This disparity can lead to a phenomenon known as talent hoarding, where schools retain a large pool of talent, making it almost impossible for smaller schools to remain competitive against bigger schools. One major way in which powerhouse schools are able to stockpile talent is through the transfer portal, where players are able to transfer between schools after each season. Since the introduction of NIL deals, the transfer portal has been the primary place where small schools lose the talent that they already have to bigger schools, as bigger schools hunt down good players in smaller schools, then offer them an NIL deal in which smaller schools simply cannot compete with due to lack of funds. This case of talent hoarding has been seen recently, as according to ESPN, the University of Wisconsin filed a lawsuit against the University of Miami, accusing them of tampering with their cornerback, Xavier Lucas. Wisconsin claimed that a “Miami staff member and a prominent alumnus met with Lucas and his family at a relative’s home in Florida and offered him money to transfer, shortly after Lucas had signed a 2-year NIL deal with Wisconsin.” This shows the prevalence of this issue, and how smaller schools are powerless in keeping key players, when big schools offer magnitudes more money to transfer. 

Another major consequence of the NIL system is the erosion of competitive balance, which harms the appeal of college sports. Especially for college football, as historically, it has thrived on unpredictability, where lesser-known programs could occasionally upset powerhouse teams and build successful seasons through strong coaching and player development. However, with NIL money concentrated at wealthier programs, this unpredictability and balance is rapidly disappearing. According to data from 247sports, a recruiting service, the majority of top-ranked high school recruits consistently commit to a small group of elite programs, and NIL deals have only accelerated this trend. As a result, smaller schools lose both incoming talent and developed players, limiting their ability to compete at a high level. This imbalance reduces parity across the sport and can lead to declining fan interest, as outcomes become increasingly predictable. If college football becomes dominated by a handful of financially superior programs, it risks losing the widespread engagement that has historically made it one of the most popular sports in the United States. 

In conclusion, while NIL was introduced to provide college athletes with fair opportunities to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness, its current implementation has created significant unintended consequences. The absence of regulations such as salary caps or structured guidelines has allowed wealthier programs to dominate the recruiting landscape, leading to talent hoarding and the weakening of smaller schools. Additionally, the transfer portal has amplified this issue by making it easier for top programs to “steal” proven players from other programs through financial incentives. Beyond individual cases, the broader impact on competitive balance threatens the long-term integrity and popularity of college athletics. To preserve fairness, the governing body must consider implementing regulations that promote equity among programs while still allowing athletes to benefit from their market value. Without reform, the gap between powerhouse and smaller schools will continue to wide, fundamentally altering the nature of college sports.