This is an opinion column.

For decades, the NCAA exploited its athletes to the benefit of the association and member universities. Under the guise of promoting amateur sports, it reaped the market benefits without passing players commensurate value beyond a free college degree. After the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for athletes to benefit from their name, images, and likenesses (NIL), the NCAA has failed to develop a reasonable system to preserve the amateur nature of college sports, fairly compensate athletes, and protect competitive balance across member schools. It’s time to rethink the entire system.

While I understand that many athletes play sports under the auspices of the NCAA, we’re really talking about Division I men’s football and basketball. The two sports account for roughly two-thirds of NIL deals. Football alone accounts for almost half.

The NCAA and member institutions want to put an engaging, competitive athletic product on display. The market demand for that product creates the NIL value for players. It’s silly to look at the situation as anything other than a symbiotic business relationship between athletes and institutions. To be clear, we shouldn’t undervalue higher education, but the athletes who earn the most NIL money are frequently those who will be playing professional sports. Suggesting that a bachelor’s degree carries more value than their athletic earning potential ignores reality.

First, let’s deal with the NIL situation. That money should be equivalent to product endorsement deals by professional athletes. If Gatorade wants to invest in a college athlete as part of an advertising campaign, neither the NCAA nor any school should have anything to do with it.

The reverse is also true. In a true endorsement scenario, the company invests in the athlete. The team is a separate consideration. Athlete NIL deals shouldn’t be contingent on a player signing with or remaining at a specific school. That’s something else entirely. Call it what it really is, player compensation (PC). NIL collectives and other booster groups essentially fundraise and provide PC inducing players to sign with their preferred schools. Legal changes in a number of states like Alabama and Tennessee allow universities to work with third parties to raise and deploy PC.

Treating NIL money the same as PC is absurd.

Under the proposed system I’m suggesting, NIL would be restricted to endorsement contracts which rely upon a player’s NIL to sell goods and services as part of a company’s overall marketing strategy. NIL contracts must specifically require player participation in commercials, events, or other advertising activities designed to exploit a player’s NIL. If the contract requires enrollment at a specific school, the NIL funds must also be reclassified as PC.

PC is money, goods, or services provided to players as an inducement to participate in athletics at a specific institution. It does not include contractual agreements with players for any advertising purposes.

We’ve crossed the line into paying college athletes. We should simply rip the bandaid off. Universities should be able to compensate athletes directly as employees.

College teams should also be subject to a salary cap that incorporates both direct compensation by schools and PC money. Take D1 football as an example. There are plenty of ways to set a competitive cap, but it should be tied to a publicly available consensus figure. For example, the NFL rookie minimum is $750,000. Take ten percent of that number, and multiply it by 85 scholarship slots on a team. 98 percent of college football players won’t play professionally, but each team needs some wiggle room to lure some of the best players who will. Under this cap, each Division I football team would be limited to a total roster cost of $6,375,000. Looking at pay in the XFL, that team cap might still be a little high. The beauty is that every team must deal with the same limitation.

Schools don’t have to dance around compensating players, and they get clarity about what funds count against the cap. PC counts against a school’s salary cap limit and must be declared for players to be NCAA eligible. If schools don’t want third party boosters messing with recruiting, they could simply pony up the entire cap themselves. Meanwhile, players are protected because they can earn unlimited NIL money for their personalities, followings, and performance.

Programs that violate the cap simply lose scholarships the following year proportionate to their overage.

So what about the transfer portal?

Make it simple and predictable. Provide athletes with six years of eligibility between undergraduate and graduate school provided that they meet academic eligibility requirements. Athletes that meet the current NCAA redshirt standard may transfer during transfer portal windows without penalty and play immediately. Athletes who do not meet the redshirt eligibility requirements may transfer and play immediately but lose one year of eligibility. A non-redshirt player who has exhausted five years of eligibility would not be eligible for transfer.

Players shouldn’t feel trapped down the depth chart, but they should have to think before they transfer.

We should also address the NCAA tampering rules because they’re awkward to enforce. Players shouldn’t constantly have to deal with coaches, recruiters, and boosters harassing them about potential opportunities. Have an open offer period during the transfer portal window at the end of the season for all NCAA players. If we’re going to create meaningful opportunities for players, they should at least be able to hear pitches coming their way. Combined with a salary cap and eligibility penalty for non-redshirt transfers, fielding offers should be relatively manageable.

We can’t change any of this until we remove the fictions we’re currently operating under. Players are already paid to play for certain schools. There is a clear difference between endorsement deals and pay-to-play. We should acknowledge that recruiters and boosters will “tamper” with talented players on current rosters, so we might as well make the rules clear and for the players’ benefit.

The shift to a player-centric college sporting model is a necessary development, but we can’t ignore the need to preserve the unique character of college sports. The NCAA failed for far too long to bring players to the economic table, and I’m not optimistic that it has answers for what comes next. Those of us who love college sports must agitate for a solution, or the balance between academics institutions and players may simply fall apart.

Smith is a recovering political attorney with four boys, two dogs, a bearded dragon, and an extremely patient wife. He’s a partner in a media company, a business strategy wonk, and a regular on talk radio. Please direct outrage or agreement to [email protected] or @DCameronSmith on X or @davidcameronsmith on Threads.