Chase Griffin is a quarterback at UCLA, publisher of The Athlete's Bureau, a nationally recognized leader in the athlete empowerment movement, a 2X NIL Athlete of the Year award winner, and a triple Bruin graduate (BA ’21, M.ED ‘23, MLS ‘24). He has over 40 major brand partnerships including serving as the college athlete ambassador for JP Morgan Chase. He is also a Fellow at UC Investments.
___
Game Plan: Is this new world of name, image, and likeness good for college athletes and college sports?
CG: If you look at just the industry growth of college sports, more people are tuned into college athletics than ever before, and I think a lot of that is the result of athletes being able to share their platforms and having incentives to share their stories. For generations, athletes’ entire personas were confined to the sport they played and how their coach talked about them. The recent developments now enable athletes to showcase their morals and values through brand relationships that they choose to form.
The result of this shift, for example, is Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese elevating their entire sport (women’s college basketball and now the WNBA). And as a whole, NIL has leveled the playing field by allowing athletes to now monetize who they are and to then make money. A large part of college is to learn how to make and manage money – to successfully operate in society - and NIL now allows athletes to have an experience that supports this mission.
Game Plan: It sounds like this new landscape goes beyond mere monetary benefits, but also includes issues like identity and reputation. Is this correct?
CG: This new landscape goes beyond just monetary benefits, but also includes issues like identity and reputation. Making money is obviously great, but learning how to make and sustain an income is really the important skill in my mind - and that was something that college athletes were barred from, which is the reason why 80% of professional athletes went broke after they were done playing. They were literally barred from any type of financial health and wellness education while they were in college.
Now we have branded deals, of which most are highly vetted, especially the larger dollar amount opportunities. Essentially, these deals are similar to influencer models. There’s a marketing budget and lawyers are overseeing the contracts. The athletes must deliver something, and the brand, based on analytics, can measure the return on investment.
Game Plan: What are the bumps in the road or obstacles with this new environment?
CG: While most of the changes in college athletics are very beneficial to athletes, there are some new risks that have to be managed. When it comes to collective engagements, we see some false promises being made that hurt the school’s reputation and may lead to schools losing out on prestige recruits in the future. However, I think this is just part of a young industry. Over time, I believe that the market will recalibrate itself, which we are already seeing with the development of schools being able to pay athletes directly. There will be a real onus upon the collectives to actually add value.
Game Plan: What are the added services that a collective can offer?
CG: An area where there can be greater value is on the marketing side. Does your NIL program create cohesion amongst the broader school community? Do you provide something new and flashy, or something that ties into the mission and culture of the school that motivates donor dollars or brand dollars to move in? Do you get athletes paid in a safe and sustainable way that educates them on how to handle their money? This is what you’re seeing at these mega collectives at the University of Texas, Tennessee, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State, and Michigan.
Game Plan: Should there be constraints in contracts that limit a player’s mobility to simply chase the biggest payday multiple times throughout a four-year career?
CG: I do not think a truly functional free market should have limitations on player movement that do not exist in labor markets in other sectors of the economy. I do, however, think every single deal, especially with large dollar amounts, should have a legitimate contract with stipulations that can be negotiated by the athlete and the school. For instance, if I do a three-year NIL deal with JP Morgan Chase, and they pay me incrementally, and after the first year I choose to leave, I should keep the money I made and not receive the rest. The same should go for athletes. Having all the deals in contract form is just good business, which is why I think that the collectives (whether in-house or third-party) that will survive going forward are the ones that will operate as true marketing businesses with fair and flexible terms for the athletes and the schools.
.webp){kind=logo}