By Anna Giambelluca, Esq.
NIL discussions often focus on contracts, compensation, and the rapidly changing world of college athletics. But the opening session of the Sports Lawyers Association 2026 Annual Conference, NIL Through the Lens of DEI, immediately set an intentional tone for the conference by pushing the conversation beyond legal updates and financial discussions surrounding athlete compensation. Instead, the discussion focused on how equity, access, visibility, and institutional support continue to shape opportunities within modern college sports.
Nona Lee brought both professional and personal experience to the conversation. As a certified DEI consultant and former collegiate athlete, Lee guided attendees through interactive discussions surrounding leadership, institutional support, and the realities influencing who benefits most from the evolving NIL marketplace.
The presentation was intentionally interactive. Throughout the session, Lee presented attendees with hypotheticals involving athlete marketability, social media influence, institutional resources, endorsement opportunities, and public perception, then asked audience members to weigh in with their own perspectives. The format encouraged attendees to think critically about how bias, visibility, and access can shape NIL outcomes in ways that are not always immediately obvious.
Early in the discussion, Lee emphasized that “discomfort is a sign of growth,” a theme that carried throughout the presentation as attendees explored how NIL opportunities are distributed unevenly across gender, race, sport, and institutional resources.
Lee acknowledged that NIL has created meaningful opportunities for athletes to benefit financially from their personal brands and visibility, particularly for women athletes, athletes of color, and athletes competing outside of traditional revenue-generating sports. At the same time, she stressed that many of the inequities long present throughout college athletics remain visible within the NIL era.
“NIL now sparks broader discussions around equity and access, financial literacy, and DEI,” Lee said.
According to Lee, NIL opportunities are often influenced by far more than athletic ability alone. Factors such as social media reach, school resources, conference exposure, and existing professional networks can all influence which athletes receive opportunities and which athletes struggle to gain visibility. Lee repeatedly returned to the concepts of proximity, power, and advocacy, encouraging attendees to “interrogate that gap” when evaluating why certain athletes are positioned to benefit more than others.
One of the session’s most thought-provoking discussions centered on the growing separation between athletic performance and NIL success. Using examples involving influencer-driven athletes and social media visibility, Lee questioned whether NIL compensation is always tied to on-field production or whether online presence and marketability are increasingly driving value.
In one hypothetical presented to the audience, Lee compared a highly visible social media personality with limited playing time to a starting athlete in a revenue-generating sport who lacked the same online following. Audience members were asked to evaluate which athlete would likely receive more endorsement interest and why. The conversation highlighted how NIL opportunities can sometimes prioritize entertainment value, aesthetics, and digital influence over athletic accomplishment itself.
“What is NIL actually rewarding here?” Lee asked.
That question expanded into broader conversations surrounding influencer culture, visibility, and which athletes may be excluded from NIL opportunities that prioritize marketability over athletic achievement. Lee also noted that “risk is often unevenly applied — especially to athletes from marginalized groups,” particularly when athletes navigate public scrutiny, branding expectations, and social media engagement.
Several inequities currently shaping the NIL landscape were discussed during the session. Lee pointed to persistent disparities in high-value deals between men’s and women’s sports, as well as the concentration of major NIL opportunities at Power Four institutions with greater financial resources and media exposure. Football and basketball continue to dominate much of the NIL marketplace, while athletes in Olympic and non-revenue sports often face significantly fewer opportunities despite competitive success.
Lee also examined the role institutional support can play in shaping NIL access. Schools with established media departments, larger donor networks, dedicated NIL education programs, and stronger alumni connections are often better positioned to help athletes secure opportunities. Smaller institutions and HBCUs, by contrast, may face challenges competing for the same level of corporate attention and sponsorship resources.
Another issue raised during the discussion involved locker room dynamics created by NIL disparities. As some athletes secure substantial endorsement deals while teammates receive little or no compensation, schools and coaches are increasingly navigating questions involving team culture, morale, and transparency.
In addition to discussing current inequities, the session also explored potential solutions. Lee outlined several strategies institutions and conferences could implement to create more inclusive NIL environments, including voluntary gender-parity initiatives, centralized deal support systems, media equity plans, and conference-level equity certifications.
Additional strategies focused specifically on supporting smaller schools and HBCUs were also discussed. Among the ideas presented were regional sponsorship collaborations, alumni-driven micro-collectives, and shared resource models designed to expand opportunities for athletes outside the Power Four structure.
Legal and policy uncertainty remained another major focus of the session. Lee discussed unresolved questions involving Title IX implications, booster involvement, institutional oversight, and the continued evolution of amateurism in college athletics. As NIL rules continue to shift, the conversation emphasized the important role attorneys, compliance professionals, and institutional leaders will play in helping shape more transparent and equitable systems moving forward.
The presentation ultimately returned to leadership and authenticity within the NIL space.
“Courageous leaders means standing in your truth,” Lee said. “For athletes, coaches, and even business leaders, leveraging NIL effectively requires self-awareness, integrity, and courage to align brand decisions with authentic values.”
Lee closed by reframing the meaning behind NIL itself: an athlete’s “name” represents reputation, their “image” reflects perception, and their “likeness” represents influence.
That idea ultimately captured the broader takeaway from the session. As NIL continues to reshape college athletics, questions surrounding equity, visibility, and access may prove just as significant as the financial opportunities themselves.
