The ‘New Advisors’ and How They Will Represent Today’s Athletes
(Editor’s Note: Special from Sports Litigation Alert.)
The transformation of collegiate athletics due to NIL rights, the transfer portal, and evolving institutional frameworks was front and center at the 2025 Sports Lawyers Association Annual Conference. In The New Advisors – Representing the Future Athlete, panelists Alanna Hernandez (EVP, Business Affairs and Operations, Team Sports at Wasserman), Andrew Bua (VP Legal, Wasserman), Locher Grove (CEO, Dealiyo), and Ena Patel (President, Innovation Baseball and former Chief of Staff at Vanderbilt Athletics) discussed the fragmented legal and commercial landscape student-athletes now have to navigate.[1]
Redefining the “Student-Athlete”
The panel emphasized how the traditional “student-athlete” concept no longer reflects the legal or practical realities in collegiate sports. A central theme emerged around the disjunction between the increased professionalism of college athletics and the outdated legal and institutional frameworks; namely, the NCAA’s silence and universities’ inconsistent implementation of protective measures.
Hernandez raised the question of a university’s “duty of care” when presenting complex 25-page NIL agreements to 18-year-old students. These young athletes are exposed to potential exploitation, especially when they lack the resources to secure knowledgeable counsel before signing. Locher Grove urged legal professionals in the room to consider pro bono opportunities, emphasizing the vast potential for education in this area. He stressed that athletic departments can’t expect student-athletes entering college to be “fully-fledged business representatives” capable of negotiating on their own behalf.
The 95%ers
This brings us to Grove’s focus on the so-called “95%ers.” Dealiyo, the NIL facilitation platform Grove co-founded, created a marketplace with educational resources to serve as a monetization application but also as a tool for athlete empowerment in smaller markets and non-revenue sports.[2] The platform is designed with a branding and marketing focus for the 95%ers, self-described as: “The vast majority of time and attention in NIL is focused on the top 5% of athletes in football and basketball, leaving huge amounts of brand dollars on the table and 95% of student athletes unsupported. No one is supporting the 95%ers.”[3]
“There’s a massive amount of brand dollars being left on the table,” Grove argued, pointing to overlooked opportunities in industries like food and beverage, fashion, retail, and services particularly at the local activation level. He also highlighted the market imbalance where top-tier collectives structure multimillion-dollar pay-for-play deals, while most student-athletes still lack basic education on contract terms, deliverables, and intellectual property protection. “These stories need to be amplified,” he said. Grove shared that 83% of college athletes are not participating in NIL deals at all. Dealiyo aims to equalize access for these athletes, offering a marketplace where deals can be found, negotiated, and fulfilled without the need for burdensome legal costs or predatory intermediaries.
Women and NIL Market Power
Women athletes often outperform their male counterparts in NIL deal execution, follow-through, and engagement. According to Grove, they are 1.3x more effective than typical influencers at driving purchasing behavior, making them prime targets for micro-influencer campaigns within the $30 billion industry. Despite generally receiving less institutional support and media coverage, women athletes are turning NIL into a lucrative business opportunity.
Yet, this success elicits fears about fair market value and subjective contract interpretations. Without federal standards, contracts are based on varying assessments of an athlete’s worth, risking both under- and over-compensation which will likely lead to litigation. Grove pointed out that performance-based indicators often overlook the potential of engagement-driven, targeted valuations. While high-profile athletes have visibility, lesser-known athletes with more focused brand deals can offer better returns.
Some universities have responded with innovative NIL infrastructures: Clemson launched a creator studio, LSU invested in sports documentaries, and Oregon developed a student-run NIL hub.[4] However, even these efforts face legal challenges. A lawsuit filed against the University of Oregon alleges unequal access to NIL opportunities, raising Title IX concerns as NIL is considered a form of publicity and promotion which must be equally available to both genders.[5]
The panel did not address the uncomfortable realities underlying subjective NIL deals, which raise concerns about the exploitation and sexualization of female athletes. The question of why women athletes are often more sought-after ties into the subjective attributes that drive their marketability, such as beauty and social media appeal. Although some women may benefit financially in the short term, this trend perpetuates the idea that women’s sports are only valuable when presented in a marketable, perhaps sexualized way, posing long-term risks to gender equality in athletics.
Regulatory Uncertainty
The panel discussed the uncertain future of NIL collectives, with Grove stating that most are “dying” and must reinvent themselves to survive. This shift is being driven by the House settlement and growing legal scrutiny of revenue-sharing models. Grove noted that 70% of current collectives would fail basic due diligence standards, proposed by firms like Deloitte. To bring order to the chaos, he proposed a universal clearinghouse–possibly run by the NCAA–to standardize and store NIL contract requirements. However, in an industry where standards are constantly changing, implementing such a system would be nearly impossible. In contrast, Wasserman proposed their own private proprietary index to assess NIL value. Their index would incorporate metrics like engagement, earned media, and overall performance as indicators of an athlete’s marketability.
Bua described NIL contracts “as often one-sided,” in many agreements like broad termination rights, subjective assessments of fair market value, and provisions that heavily favor institutions. The panel then discussed the ongoing “pay-for-play” sentiment, highlighting extreme buyout clauses for student-athletes transferring schools. Panelists confirmed that some universities are prepared to sue athletes who break contracts, signaling a shift toward more aggressive actions as financial and reputational stakes rise. Examples include Jaden Rashada’s lawsuit against the University of Florida for a breached NIL contract and the Arkansas EDGE collective’s $200,000 demand from quarterback Madden Iamaleava due to his early departure.[6]
The panel painted a picture of a system in flux, if not in disarray. With sparse and inconsistent NCAA guidance, universities have taken different approaches to fill the void. Post-House settlement, the future of collectives is uncertain as liabilities push them more towards compliance-focused intermediaries. Patel argued that an external entity may be necessary, as head coaches are not meant to act as General Managers or handle the business side of sports. Schools might turn to external collectives as brokers or service providers to gain a competitive edge in the market. Nevertheless, all panelists agreed that a “slew of lawsuits” is likely on the horizon.
Agent Ethics and the Professionalization of Advising
One of the most troubling aspects of the discussion, for me, was Team Wasserman’s description of agent duties as “guiding student-athletes to schools.” As agents now serve as both business managers and quasi-life coaches, tensions arise between maximizing an athlete’s market value and respecting their personal autonomy. The challenge becomes finding the balance between respecting their independent choices and supporting them. Ultimately, this is a business. So, how much weight should agents give to profit over the athlete’s well-being and personal choice?
This concern grew when Bua admitted that Wasserman builds relationships with athletic departments, administrators, and high school coaches not just to sign clients, but to influence where athletes enroll. He referred to this as “guiding” athletes toward schools that align with their NIL ambitions. But at what point does guidance become steering? If representation is now essentially recruitment, the potential for undue influence or exploitation becomes much harder to ignore. Bua also highlighted a concerning trend where high school athletes are being courted earlier than ever, often by underqualified or unscrupulous agents. With agents charging commissions as high as 20%, far above traditional industry standards.
Bua also compared the transfer portal to “free agency,” where advisors are focusing on short-term deals that revolve around immediate performance, rather than long-term stability. “We all know it’s kinda connected [to their performance]” said Hernandez, noting the shift toward deals based on specific, short-term deliverables at an athlete’s performance peak. Bua emphasized that long-term deals are no longer the focus as an athlete’s performance can fluctuate and an injury could dramatically reduce their market value. However, performance-based contracts can harm athletes’ mental health, as injuries or poor play may now affect their academic, athletic, and financial stability. While such deals may bring short-term gains, the added pressure risks their long-term well-being.
The purpose of these lawsuits, the House settlement, and NIL reforms was to create more autonomy for athletes. Yet now, it seems we’ve just swapped one regulator for another-one that may focus more on endorsing the athlete’s individual income rather than their overall well-being.
Conclusion
The panel, composed entirely of agents, offered valuable insights but was limited by its singular perspective; including voices from athletic departments handling NIL could have provided a more comprehensive understanding. Many athletes face significant pressure to engage in personal branding and financial monetization, which can be overwhelming especially for those who prefer to focus on their sport and academics without added business responsibilities. As collegiate athletics continue to evolve, it is crucial to strike a careful balance between empowering athletes and protecting them. The current system remains fragmented and inconsistent, creating an urgent need for a more standardized and ethical approach that ensures all athletes, regardless of their marketability, receive fair treatment and support that prioritizes their success both on and off the field.
[1] See The New Advisors—Representing the Future Athlete, panel at the 2025 Sports Lawyers Association Annual Conference (May 16, 2025), https://www.sportslaw.org/conferences/2025conf/agenda/index.cfm.
[2] See DEALIYO, https://www.dealiyo.com (last visited May 22, 2025).
[3] See id.
[4] See Clemson Opens “The CAB,” A Dedicated, Brick-and-Mortar Facility for Student-Athlete Branding & Education, Clemson Tigers Athletics, https://clemsontigers.com/branding-institute/ (last visited May 22, 2025); JR Williams, LSU Athletes Receive $1M as NIL Compensation for Amazon Docuseries, Profluence (Feb. 14, 2024), https://profluence.com/lsu-athletes-receive-1m-nil-compensation/ (noting LSU receives $1M for a docuseries while athletes negotiate separate NIL talent fees); University of Oregon Launches First Licensed School NIL Marketplace in College Athletics, University of Oregon Athletics, (Mar. 3, 2022), https://goducks.com/news/2022/3/3/general-university-of-oregon-launches-first-licensed-school-nil-marketplace-in-college-athletics.
[5] See Schroeder v. Univ. of Oregon, No. 6:23-cv-01806 (D. Or. Dec. 1, 2023); see also Tyrone P. Thomas & Maddie Fenton, Lawsuit with Claim of Unequal Access to NIL Opportunities Raises New Title IX Concerns, Holland & Knight (Dec. 19, 2023), https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/blogs/sports-law-alert/lawsuit-with-claim-of-unequal-access-to-nil-opportunities-raises-new-title-ix-concerns.
[6] See Rashada v. Hathcock, No. 3:24-cv-00219 (N.D. Fla. May 21, 2024)(discussing Rashada’s fraud claims); Joshua M. Frieser & Jacob Wendt, NIL Litigation Heats Up with Two Major Cases, Frieser Legal, https://frieserlegal.com/nil-litigation-heats-up-with-two-major-cases/ (last visted Mar. 22, 2025); Philip T. Sheng & Ellis C. McKennie III, Iamaleava v. Razorbacks: Are NIL Buyouts the Future of College Sports?, Venable LLP, (May 6, 2025), https://www.venable.com/insights/iamaleava-v-razorbacks-are-nil-buyouts-the-future-of-college-sports.