Why Brands Should Care About NIL Marketing

In June 2025, NIL collectives spent 824% more than they did in June 2024 (Opendorse).

For consumer brands, NIL (Name, Image and Likeness) deals promise access to a valuable audience: Gen Z fans who follow college athletes with zeal. On the surface, an NIL contract looks much like influencer marketing. The risks also feel familiar: breach, copyright misuse, reputational fallout. But the NIL market is not simply influencer marketing with a collegiate twist. It is governed by a fragmented rulebook, shaped by evolving intermediaries, and populated by athletes whose value can swing overnight.

For marketing leaders at Fortune 1000 firms, the question is not whether NIL is attractive. It is how to capture the upside while insulating the brand’s equity from downside risk.

How NIL Marketing Risks Mirror Influencer Marketing

Much of NIL overlaps with what your brand already manages in influencer and endorsement deals. You are licensing an athlete’s image to promote your product. The exposures are well-known:

• Content liability: misstatements or copyright infringement.
  
  

• Contract risk: missed appearances or undelivered posts.
  
  

• Reputation risk: when the talent says or does something that harms your brand.

Media liability cover, indemnification clauses and event cancellation insurance address these. Your marketing and legal teams already use them.

Where NIL Differs, and Why It Matters

A fractured rulebook 

The NCAA allows NIL compensation but still bans pay-for-play and recruiting inducements (NCAA interim policy). More than 30 states have their own statutes, each with disclosure rules and category bans (Saul Ewing NIL tracker; Varnum compliance guide). Universities then layer on restrictions to protect institutional sponsors (University of Oregon guidance).

For a national campaign, what is lawful in one state may be impermissible in another. Unlike professional sports, there is no harmonized framework.

Top NIL Risks for Brands (and how to manage them)

Intermediaries are maturing, but the question is governance

Many NIL dollars still flow through booster collectives. These organisations were designed to direct alumni money to athletes, not to manage national advertising campaigns. That is changing. The College Sports Commission now requires collectives to show a “valid business purpose” in any brand-facing deal (CSC guidance). The question is whether an intermediary can provide the governance, reporting and stability a Fortune 1000 campaign demands.

Representation is uneven- the risk is optics

Some college athletes work with experienced sports agents; others sign contracts managed by friends, family, or small local advisers. That unevenness creates brand risk. A contract that looks one-sided can damage reputation even if it was entered into fairly. The safeguard is to set your own compliance baseline: insist on professional representation, use your standard contract structures, and avoid improvising in ways that could appear exploitative (Fennemore on NIL agents).

Athlete value is fragile, so build structural safeguards

The marketability of college athletes can change overnight. A season-ending injury, a transfer to another school, or an eligibility ruling can erase the reach you are paying for. Unlike professionals, most students do not carry loss-of-value insurance. For brands, the answer is structural: contingency clauses, staged payments, and termination triggers that prevent a campaign from collapsing if circumstances change (Morgan Lewis on NIL volatility).

Scrutiny is heightened- assume volatility

College athletes face intense attention from fans, universities and local media, often without the media-training or support professionals receive. A single misjudged post or off-field incident can spread fast, with your brand attached. These risks are not hypothetical: disputes over image use after contracts expired have already led to litigation in NIL deals (Shuffield Lowman on Florida NIL compliance). The practical response is to use precise licensing, build monitoring into campaigns, and prepare crisis-response playbooks in advance.

School IP is off-limits… unless you pay for it

Hiring a college athlete does not grant a brand the right to use the school’s marks, logos, or uniforms. NCAA guidance and several state laws explicitly prohibit combining NIL deals with school IP without a separate license (NCAA interim policy; Texas NIL law explainer). Universities enforce these rights vigorously- Penn State, for example, won a trademark case against an apparel retailer using vintage team logos without permission (WHYY).

The risk is straightforward: creative assets can be invalidated, and the brand could face licensing disputes. Treat school IP as a separate asset. If you want logos or uniforms in a campaign, negotiate with the university’s licensing office.

How Leading Brands Execute NIL

While Opendorse data show that the majority of NIL dollars flow through collectives, those funds are largely donor-driven rather than brand ad spend (Opendorse report). National consumer brands usually take a different approach.

Coca-Cola/Powerade has signed athletes directly for national campaigns (Sports Business Journal). H&R Block contracted dozens of women athletes for its “Fair Shot” equity initiative (H&R Block press release). Zaxby’s has worked directly with individual athletes such as Brock Bowers (Athlete NIL announcement). And Pepsi/Ledo’s Pizza partnered with Maryland WR Malik Washington through “One Maryland NIL,” a school-run program rather than a donor collective (University of Maryland release).

Collectives remain relevant, especially for team-wide or community-based activations. New guidance from the College Sports Commission clarifies when collective-based deals meet the “valid business purpose” test (CSC guidance). But for Fortune 1000 brands, direct contracting (via athletes, school marketplaces, or NIL platforms) offers clearer rights, better compliance oversight, and tighter insurance integration.

Best Practices: NIL Insurance, Compliance & Crisis Planning

The NIL market is fragmented, but brands now have credible tools to manage it.

• University Marketplaces: Platforms such as INFLCR, Opendorse, and school-run exchanges like One Maryland NIL provide pre-vetted athletes, standardized disclosures, and compliance support. They reduce the risk of inadvertently violating state or NCAA rules.
  
  

• Regulatory Guidance: The College Sports Commission and several conferences issue compliance advisories on disclosure and collective activity. Following these helps marketing leaders plan national campaigns without missteps.
  
  

• Legal Trackers: Firms such as Saul Ewing and Varnum maintain state-by-state NIL legislation trackers, essential for campaigns that span multiple jurisdictions with uneven rules.
  
  

• Insurance Built for Influencers and NIL: Solutions like 1099Policy ensure these college athlete influencers show up with their own workers’ compensation (injuries during shoots or appearances), general liability (in-person activations), media liability (copyright or content disputes), and cyber liability (hacked accounts or fraudulent posts).

The lesson for marketing leaders: NIL is not a regulatory headache to avoid, but a marketing channel to structure. Use official marketplaces, consult legal trackers, and require NIL-specific insurance as standard. Done this way, NIL can move from experiment to core brand strategy.

Conclusion

For marketing leaders at Fortune 1000 firms, NIL is not simply an extension of influencer marketing. It is a fragmented, volatile market that requires more diligence and stronger safeguards.

• Default to direct contracting for national campaigns.

• Use collectives selectively, with escrow and indemnities in place.

• Mandate insurance: media liability, cyber, general liability, and workers’ compensation, tailored to NIL.

• Vet compliance: across NCAA, state, and school rules.

• Plan for crisis: assume a higher volatility curve than in professional endorsements.

NIL offers reach into audiences brands struggle to access. But unmanaged, it can also expose those brands to reputational and legal risk. The difference between upside and downside lies in structure, insurance and control.

Photo by Riley McCullough on Unsplash