Hailey Van Lith’s NIL valuation sat between $758,000 and $779,000, placing her around No. 5 among women’s college basketball players, built across more than ten deals with brands like Adidas and LaCroix [Kartikahuja]. That figure would have been unthinkable for a college athlete five years ago. As revenue-sharing caps and post-eligibility injury insurance are adjusted for the 2025-2026 seasons, and federal attention turns to how college sports are structured, the question behind the headline numbers is this: when athletes earn, who carries the risk?
The Reward Side Moves to the Athlete
Before NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness rules that allow college athletes to earn from endorsements), a scholarship was steady and predictable.
Photo by It covered tuition, and the institution absorbed the volatility of the sports economy around it.
NIL changed the direction of that flow. Athletes now capture upside that once stayed with schools and sponsors, and they carry the downside that comes with it. A single injury or controversy can erase deals quickly, with no union contract or guaranteed salary underneath.
Most NIL arrangements are short-term and tied to performance or social metrics, making income irregular. An athlete effectively becomes a small business operator, usually without any business training, while still attending classes and competing.
The Gaps Between Sports Are Wide
Photo by NIL value isn’t spread evenly. It follows audience size, which concentrates money in football and men’s basketball and leaves most other sports with far less.
The contrast is stark at the lower end. Most NJCAA (National Junior College Athletic Association) athletes reportedly earn only in the low four figures annually through local NIL deals [RallyFuel]. Against a near-$780,000 valuation at the top of women’s basketball [Kartikahuja], the spread is enormous.
That gap matters because participation is climbing. The NCAA reported nearly 7,000 student-athletes in emerging sports in 2024-25, a 24% increase from the prior period [NCAA]. More athletes are entering a market where only a narrow tier sees large numbers.
Where Money Comes With Strings
Much of the largest NIL money flows through donor-funded collectives rather than national brand deals.
Photo by These pools can fund rosters at a scale individual endorsements rarely match.
The trade-off is dependency. Collective funding is rarely guaranteed beyond a single year, which gives programs influence over transfer and playing-time decisions. Funding that comes without a long contract is easier for a program to direct.
The practical risks for an athlete tend to cluster around three points:
-
Single-source income that can vanish at renewal
-
No formal protection if a deal lapses mid-season
-
Pressure tied to staying, not just performing
What the Early Signals Suggest
How athletes handle this income now shapes their position long after eligibility ends.
Photo by Athletes who treat NIL as a foundation, tracking expenses and spreading deals across multiple brands, tend to keep more of what they earn than those relying on one source.
As Kartikahuja noted about even a well-documented earner: “No verified total has been publicly released by her camp, and exact figures remain undisclosed.” The financial picture is harder to read than the headline valuation implies, and clarity favors athletes who build structure early.
NIL gives real earning power to a narrow group of athletes and modest returns to most, while handing the financial exposure to all of them. Collective dependency and short contracts keep that risk personal. With revenue-sharing caps and injury coverage being refined for 2025-2026 and federal scrutiny rising, the rules are still being written. Athletes who set up basic financial and legal infrastructure now will be steadier whichever way those rules settle.
