Lincoln Riley, the head coach of the University of Southern California, recently told reporters that the proliferation of name, image and likeness (NIL) deals has moved from a chaotic experiment to a relatively predictable financial environment, though he warns that a formal salary cap is still needed to bring true stability.
A Call for Structural Reform
His comments follow a wave of public disclosures that show top programs allocating tens of millions of dollars to player compensation through third‑party agreements, with Ohio State’s 2024 championship roster reportedly receiving about $20 million, while Texas, Oregon and Miami each spent between $30 million and $40 million in the same year. Indiana’s 2025 title‑contending squad stayed under $25 million, illustrating that lavish spending does not always translate into on‑field success.
Riley described the current landscape as less unpredictable than the “Wild West” era of unregulated payments, but he argued that without a league‑wide cap the system remains vulnerable to legal challenges and competitive imbalance. The coach’s stance aligns with a broader bipartisan effort known as the Save College Sports Act, which would tighten transfer rules, extend eligibility to five years and curb in‑season poaching of coaches.
The 2025 House v. NCAA settlement, which resolved three federal antitrust lawsuits, permits Division I schools to make direct payments to athletes and to share revenue, replacing the old scholarship ceiling with roster‑size limits. Under the new framework, third‑party NIL contracts exceeding $600 must be disclosed and independently vetted, a rule that has already prompted the creation of internal agencies such as Ohio State’s Buckeyes Sports Group and the Blue Ribbon Elite program at USC.
Conference‑level partnerships are also reshaping the market; the Big 12 recently inked a deal with Monster Energy, while long‑standing agreements with Adidas, Nike and other brands guarantee athletes access to marketing opportunities and portfolio development. These arrangements reflect a shift from ad‑hoc endorsements to structured revenue‑sharing models that blend athletic performance with commercial branding.
Riley’s critique of the NCAA’s enforcement mechanisms underscores a growing consensus that the organization’s current oversight model is insufficient to police a multi‑billion‑dollar ecosystem that now spans state courts and jurisdictional boundaries. As the industry evolves, coaches, legislators and institutional leaders are converging on the need for clearer, enforceable rules that can sustain both athlete compensation and the integrity of college sport.