As college athletes fight to profit from their own fame, a UF researcher is tracking the cause

The debate over college athletes’ right to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) continues to fuel a nationwide debate. Since 2020, the topic has been at the center of 12 congressional hearings spearheaded by the National Collegiate Athletic Association and key figures in the sports industry. 

However, despite the topic’s interest among college sports fanatics and its potential impact on amateur sports, little research has been done about the messaging from these hearings and how they may influence media reporting and public perception. So University of Florida researcher Molly Harry, Ph.D., is getting to the bottom of it. 

Harry, an assistant professor in the UF College of Health & Human Performance’s Department of Sport Management, recently published a study in Communication & Sport on NIL and agenda-setting theory – the interplay between communication, power and decision-making. 

“The layperson’s understanding of NIL often comes from ESPN and sports columnists,” Harry said. “It’s important to understand what these individuals [reporters] are learning and taking away from these hearings to convey that information and those insights to us.”

Using this framework, Harry’s study analyzed how these dynamics shaped messaging from 11 congressional hearings between 2020 and 2024. Through critical discourse analysis – a research method that examines the use of language in social contexts – Harry reviewed each hearing, along with associated documents and testimonies made publicly available from the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. 

To better understand the key stakeholder perspectives and themes in the hearings, Harry categorized these individuals into three groups: maintainers, or those who seek to preserve collegiate sports as is; disruptors, or those who seek to challenge power over collegiate sports; and Congress.  

Harry’s analysis revealed that maintainers pushed for federal preemption, antitrust exemptions, and to view college athletes as students rather than employees. Disruptors, on the other hand, advocated for minimal government NIL involvement, expanding college athletes’ NIL and other rights, and enhancing the experiences of athletes from marginalized groups. Lastly, Congress’ messaging reflected a general misunderstanding of why the government needed to be involved in NIL decision making at all. But in all these hearings, one group of disruptor voices was seemingly absent: that of college athletes. 

“From an athlete-centric lens, athletes were almost missing in the representation at these hearings,” Harry said. “It took six hearings for an athlete to be heard.”

But on June 17, 2021, the sixth hearing featured three current and former female athletes from across the country. Because of the lack of college athlete representation early on, Harry said the initial coverage of the hearing skewed toward limiting athletes’ NIL rights and opportunities, favoring the viewpoint of the maintainers who had a more prominent presence at the first six hearings. 

Harry hoped that, upon observing college athletes at the sixth hearing and thereafter, people consuming news about NIL would become more informed about the college athlete perspective. 

“NIL has the potential to be life-enhancing by allowing these athletes to become entrepreneurs, and I see that as an underlying opportunity – for NIL to be educational,” Harry said.

Understanding the messaging, Harry said, may help leaders across the different stakeholder groups craft more informed strategies – including tailoring their agendas and message points when engaging with media, creating or improving NIL educational initiatives, and supporting policy development as the conversation around NIL continues to evolve.