Cue the Joker meme: “And…here…we…go.”

Chaos! No Huddle Volume 2 covered the new, shiny plans for the NIL world back in May. Now that fall sports are in full swing, how are things actually playing out?

Let’s dive in.

Why it Matters: NIL promised to democratize college athletics by finally allowing athletes to profit from their own brand. But, as with many broad sweeping changes, the early results have been more complicated and difficult than originally thought. Although headlines focus on massive NIL deals in football and basketball, Olympic and women’s sports are being systematically squeezed to make room for the new pay-for-play economy. 

Since the House v. NCAA settlement in May 2024, more than 40 Olympic sports programs have been eliminated across Division I, affecting over 1,000 student-athletes (Bloomberg Law). As eye-opening as those numbers are, they could climb even higher. With universities on average spending 66% of their budgets on football and basketball, other sports are already getting pushed aside. Washington State trimmed its top-tier track and field program to focus only on distance events, while Grand Canyon University shuttered its men’s volleyball program, even after a 2024 NCAA Final Four run. 

Women’s sports are also feeling the impact of this shift. Data shows 80% of NIL deals go to male athletes. At Texas A&M, a staggering 98% of NIL money flows to men’s sports (Forbes). With so much money at stake in the ever-changing world of fan interests, one can expect the landscape to keep transforming as schools search for their “new normal”.

The Big Picture:

The transfer portal has become the NCAA’s version of free agency on steroids. After the 2023 season, 25% of scholarship players entered the portal, and over 60% of scholarship athletes from the class of 2021 have transferred at least once, seeking greener pastures - whether that be NIL, playing time or other factors.

Here is where things get really interesting… and expensive: As Josh Pate pointed out on The Varsity Podcast, the current model for college coaching contracts and buyouts is out of sync with today’s transfer-centric, NIL-inclusive, and revenue-sharing era. Firing a coach early on in their contract now means potentially losing the entire roster a program invested millions to build, while also taking a massive financial hit to the athletic department's bottom line… which is now also on the hook for athlete payouts.

Tony Altimore provides some great nuggets on this dilemma (and is a must follow on X).

First, consider the vast discrepancies in athletic budgets across Division I, and just how high some of them have ballooned in recent years:

Budgets aside, schools across conferences are also really struggling to find financial footing:

TL:DR? COVID crushed a lot of athletic departments' financial health – and now, even the high and mighty SEC is showing strain as we enter a new era of college athletics.

Something has to give.

Zoom In:

Enter Cody Campbell: the Texas Tech billionaire booster and former NFL player who has ascended to be the top voice in college sports reform. Campbell's aptly named “Saving College Sports” nonprofit is pushing for a fundamental overhaul to displace the NCAA system entirely. You may have seen his now-censored ad run earlier this season. 

While some may call his goals far-fetched, Campbell wields serious influence. He helped shape the White House’s recent executive order on college athletics via his position on the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition. The order - signed in July 2025 - aims to force major programs to expand their Olympic sports and ban true “pay-for play” arrangements. 

In a related initiative amidst all of the sweeping changes to college sports, NIL Go was launched in June 2025 under the College Sports Commission umbrella. It’s designed to serve as the NCAAs new-era compliance system for NIL deals, allowing athletes to submit their NIL opportunities for approval:

To put it bluntly, the system has been a disaster so far. As one ACC collective source told Front Office Sports: “We’re literally looking at a system collapsing [within] the first five months of it being launched”. From June to August 2025, 32,000+ athletes submitted over 8,000 deals worth ~$80mm into the NIL Go system. Only 6,000 of those deals were cleared, leaving thousands worth over $11mm in total contract value in regulatory limbo (National Law Review). 

Even with all these inefficiencies, nothing is stopping players from getting paid (maybe still under the table!) or the NIL market from exploding. Opendorse’s latest Annual Report projects that the NIL market will grow by over +22% YoY, surpassing $2.75bn in total spend across commercial, collective and collegiate services. Nearly ~$2bn of that is expected to go directly to the athletes. 

So, what does this all mean? 

By the Numbers:

We all see the headlines about how much stars like Arch Manning or Cooper Flagg are pulling in from NIL, but a closer look reveals the system and marketplace are much less developed, and more dispersed than many might expect. 

The disparity is wide, but breaking NIL payouts out by sport and type reveals even more interesting trends:

Football continues to dominate both the collective and commercial fronts. However, there is clearly an enormous opportunity on the commercial side for both men’s and women’s sports.

The Bottom Line:  

The market is flooded with unknowns. There is a clear appetite from brands eager to spend, and countless athletes poised to be the stars of now and tomorrow – whether that be in their sport or as digital creators. Each stakeholder in this new era of college sports (and even at the high school level nowadays) might hesitate to go all-in, but we believe those who move strategically – prioritizing the athletes and their brand building – will ultimately win the arms race and reap the greatest rewards.

A mini investment memo on the stars of the tomorrow in the sporting world 

The Company: Article 41

The Business in a tweet: Article 41 is rewriting the NIL model – training student and professional athletes to become brand-ready creators and executing high-impact campaigns in partnership with top schools and national brands.

The 101: 

Fundraising Status:

Business Model: 

Traction:

Deep Dive:

Pros:

Cons: 

Comparables:

📶The Signal (No Huddle’s Take):

Article41 is poised to disrupt this emerging, yet already outdated world of athlete brand-building. For too long, athletes have had no guidepost, playbook, or legal freedom to grow and monetize their brands beyond the playing field. The moment is now, and while the NIL market is crowded (and will continue to be), Article 41’s laser focus on empowering the next generation of athlete creators — across all men’s and women’s sports — from the ground up will be what sets them apart. 

I am beyond impressed at Article 41’s early traction, including school-wide partnerships at premier institutions like UNC and UCLA - a clear signal of credibility and momentum. As more institutions get with the times and recognize what A41 brings to the table, I fully expect to see these partnerships multiply quickly. 

The A41 leadership team brings deep, proven expertise in brand strategy and athlete development, and early performance metrics already back that up. By developing athletes into polished creators early on (high school and youth sports could be natural growth opportunities), A41 isn’t just chasing the next transaction fee; they are building long-term value and relationships with athletes, schools and brands that will last. No Huddle is all the way in on Article 41, and strongly believes that these are just the early days of all the success coming their way. 

No Huddle is for informational purposes only and is not financial or business advice. The content in this newsletter does not represent the opinions of any other person, business, entity, or sponsor.