Good morning, and thanks for spending part of your day with Extra Points.
Longtime readers of Extra Points know that I believe there are two completely district NIL ecosystems: brand-based NIL, and bagman-based NIL (pay for play). These two ecosystems involve different athletes, different money sources, respond to different incentives, and share little in common besides the letters N, I and L…and the fact that their market fundamentals are changing all the time.
The bagman, or collective-centered world, is always changing. Now, with the House settlement granted a preliminary approval, it appears probable that some measure of university-controlled revenue sharing will finally happen. Depending on how vigorous enforcement activity is of NCAA regulations, some collectives could dissolve completely, merge with their local athletic department, or completely change how they fundraise and who they share revenue with. There’s a lot of uncertainty in this world, as the rules seemingly change every few months.
But what about the brand world? Athletes were signing brand deals in 2021, and they’re signing brand deals now, but do any of the structural changes on the collective side impact what’s happening with how major national brands approach NIL spending? What about locally?
I know what I hear from collectives, school-based NIL personnel and the licensing world, but I’m not as well sourced among active, professional marketers.
So earlier this week, I chatted with Advertising Week CEO Lance Pillersdorf, who provides continuing education for brands and advertising professionals, about what he’s seeing on the brand side of the NIL world. This year’s event features a completely new initiative, NIL+, meant to better connect athletes, brands and marketers.
