The landscape of college athletics changed when name, image and likeness deals were introduced.

This all started back in 2019 when the state of California passed a bill that would prohibit schools from punishing athletes who accepted endorsement money while in college starting in 2023. This forced the NCAA’s hand in modernizing their structure around its name, image and likeness rules.

After things were taken to the court system, the first iteration of state laws and the NCAA’s new rules went into effect on July 1, 2021 where athletes were officially able to ink endorsement deals.

As with everything new, NIL took on a life of it’s own as it was utilized as a recruiting weapon for many of the cash-heavy schools to land their top recruiting targets.

Four years later, things are still being worked out within the NCAA, universities around the country, and how this is going to operate moving forward.

However, in the meantime, schools are still using their NIL funds and collectives in their recruitment of top prospects on their board, and retaining those on their rosters who could be looking for a payday elsewhere.

With this being the new normal, recruits are much more adapt with what comes from an offered deal, how to navigate those proposals, and how much stock to put into those packages offered to them before ultimately deciding on which program they will compete for at the collegiate level.

Pete Nakos of On3 reported about a survey they did at the On3 Elite Series where they hosted a seminar in Nashville for the top 2025 high school football recruits educating them about NIL, entrepreneurship, and planning for life after football.

He shared some interesting results that came out of that, including some of the top concerns that these elite recruits have about NIL deals.

Much of it had to do with if the players were actually going to receive the money they are promised, or if that is just something coaches and recruiters say to convince players to sign with their program.

“People lying to me, saying numbers just to get me to commit,” was a concern voiced to Nakos.

“Being scammed into a bad situation” was another, along with, “If they are really going to pay it” and “That I’m being lied to and not receiving anything.”

Maybe those have surfaced based on the recent lawsuit by Jaden Rashada who signed a four-year, $13.85 million with the University of Florida before it was voided. He flipped his commitment from Miami to Florida based on the alleged promise he would receive that deal.

Instead, he was released from his National Letter of Intent and wound up at Arizona State before transferring to the University of Georgia this offseason.

That lawsuit will eventually be figured out, but it serves as a warning sign for many of the future recruits who are offered NIL deals, even if the basis of the lawsuit gets thrown out in court.

It’s still interesting to understand the mindset of these current high school players, also.

Nako noted that out of the 36 athletes surveyed, more than 20 of whom have a five-star designation, 54 percent said “they were content with taking less money than their largest NIL offer.”

For a while, there was concern that the schools who had the most money to offer would just be able to buy the players they wanted, creating an unfair advantage for those who have less money in their NIL pool.

That could certainly still be the case as these survey results are just a fraction of the high school football players who will be deciding on their college team.

However, it also shows that the basis of recruiting still comes down to relationships between the coaching staff, school, the player, and their families, something that has always been the bedrock of college athletics.