A lot has changed since college athletes began earning compensation in 2021.

A small percentage have become rich due to their talent and marketability. The vast majority, however, have earned much more modest additional income, if any at all.

But one thing hasn’t changed: Opponents of college students cashing in on marketing their name, image and likeness, or NIL, still argue that athlete compensation has ended the supposed purity of college sports.

The NCAA has a long history of opposing college athletes profiting from their intellectual property. And even President Donald Trump has voiced his concerns, suggesting current NIL policies “could cause serious damage to college athletics” and issuing not one but two executive orders so far in his second term to “save” college sports.

However, as a professor of sport management who has been studying name, image and likeness policies since they were implemented in 2021, I believe there are a lot of misconceptions about how they work. Based on my studies – one published in 2023 and the other one published in 2025 – I’d like to set the record straight about a few things.

Starting on July 1, 2021, the NCAA permitted college athletes to earn income through their name, image and likeness.

This historic shift reversed the NCAA’s long-established policy that making such agreements threatened athletes’ eligibility. However, this change did not come out of nowhere. Over 30 states had passed legislation that would allow college athletes to monetize and personally profit from their name, image and likeness, which was supported by several court rulings in athletes’ favor.

Immediately, athletes began signing marketing agreements with a........

© The Conversation