Who is the NCAA President of NIL?

By Jason Bolton July 14, 2023 14:00

Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images

In all of U.S. sports, no organization is more infamous than the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), specifically caused by the discourse on college athletes being able to earn and make a profit from their brand. Its president, Dr. Mark Emmert, spearheads policies and decides on behalf of the organization, such as how to respond to Name, Image, Likeness, or more commonly known as NIL.

NIL allows college athletes to make money from their own personal brand through endorsements and even commercial dealings. Not until July 2021, the NCAA banned its athletes from making money beyond scholarships and other perks that schools could give them, which sparked controversy among fans, stakeholders, and the athletes themselves.

As college sports changed and used more NIL rights, the NCAA hired Dr. Mark Emmert to be its president in 2010. Emmert is a former university president and chancellor with decades of experience in higher education administration.

Since his hire, Emmert has been a proactive leader on college sports issues, most notably overseeing the establishment of the College Football Playoff and extending revenue-sharing to member schools. Yet his term has also been colored by controversy and complaints, most notably regarding the NCAA's management of student-athlete welfare matters and pay.

This has only worsened this controversy as the NIL rights for college athletes issue takes full bloom, with many wondering out loud if the NCAA can deliver an equitable and morally right policy on all levels for everyone.

To work towards that, the NCAA has created guidelines and policies around NIL, allowing athletes to cash in on their name, image, and likeness without compromising college sports.

While we do not yet know what those guidelines will look like, there are some principles that Emmert and the NCAA seem likely to emphasize. Of course, they will undoubtedly emphasize that transparency and disclosure were very important to them, making sure the kids knew all terms and conditions with respect to any NIL deals people entered.

They could also look to rein in boosters and third-party organizations—such as prospective agents—that would typically attempt to leverage an athlete for their own ends. For example, these could be limits on the type of businesses and non-profit organizations that athletes can partner with (e.g., butchers versus venture capitalists) or caps on total compensation.

In doing so, the NCAA should balance these considerations with a national desire to provide athletes with equitable compensation and opportunities for profiting off their skills. For instance, these may include new revenue-sharing models that provide athletes with payments based on the commercial success of an NCAA team or additional benefits and support in exchange for their NIL rights.

Ultimately, the NCAA's handling of NIL rights will live and die based on how it tries to balance these complex and faceless interests. While there is no question that this was a polarizing issue and will continue to be in the future, at some level, we look to the NCAA (and its president) Mark Emmert.