ProPublica, a nonprofit organization focused on investigating abuses of power, works to highlight instances of wrongdoing through their weekly Dispatches newsletter. A recent report sheds light on the situation at the University of Illinois concerning college athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals.
In a notable basketball season last year, University of Illinois athletes were featured in various commercial endorsements, including a local BMW dealership advertisement, an Instagram post for TurboTax, and promotional activities for a nearby apartment complex. However, none of these endorsements were reported to the university, despite a state law mandating such disclosures. The Illini basketball team reported only $9,100 in NIL deals for the 2023-24 season, a stark contrast to the $145,000 average for male basketball players in the Big Ten and other top conferences.
The lack of reporting is indicative of a broader issue within the university’s athletic department, where only $1.2 million in earnings from 20 sports have been reported over three-plus years—substantially less than other institutions like Ohio State University. The failure to document these deals prevents the university from gaining a full understanding of students’ navigation through the new NIL landscape, leaving athletes, some of whom are still teenagers, vulnerable to various pitfalls.
Bill Carter of Student-Athlete Insights criticized the university’s handling of the matter as “irresponsible” and “unethical,” emphasizing the need for structure and support for student-athletes engaging in lucrative NIL activities. Despite being informed of their reporting obligations, officials acknowledged the lack of compliance enforcement at the university level.
Though athletes should disclose their deals, this is not routinely done across the country, according to Kamron Cox, U of I’s NIL specialist. The school acknowledged students are underreporting earnings and emphasized that the responsibility lies with the students, having already fulfilled its legal obligations by providing an app for reporting deals. The law has been criticized for being ineffective, lacking penalties for noncompliance, which hampers institutional reputation management.
The Tribune and ProPublica found that the department’s transparency issues were pervasive, citing missing disclosures and compliance concerns. More than 1,037 deals were reported across all sports at U of I, with a wide range in value, but many large deals were not backed up by the necessary contracts, raising questions about the adherence to state law.
The NCAA has emphasized transparency in NIL agreements and announced reforms to encourage disclosure, though consequences have been absent thus far. A pending $2.8 billion class-action settlement could soon alter this landscape by requiring more substantial reporting and penalizing non-compliance among schools and athletes.
The University of Illinois contends with underreporting, varying disclosures, and the need to focus on gender and racial pay gaps. Changes to Illinois state law have exempted NIL records from public records requests, further complicating transparency efforts. Nonetheless, the obligation for athletes to report NIL deals persists, and university officials expect compliance under more rigorous accountability measures.
