NIL and Revenue Sharing: What It Means for Soccer, Volleyball, and Non-Revenue Sport Families | RosterWise™

What changed in 2024-2025

The landscape of college athlete compensation has changed more in the past two years than in the previous century. Here’s the timeline:

July 2021: The NCAA first allowed athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) through third-party deals. This opened the door for endorsements, social media partnerships, autograph signings, and other commercial activities — but only through deals with parties outside the university itself.

October 2024: The NCAA eliminated the National Letter of Intent (NLI), replacing it with the Written Offer of Athletics Aid. See our verbal commitment guide for what this means in practice.

June 6, 2025: Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the House v. NCAA settlement — the landmark case that fundamentally restructured how schools can compensate athletes directly. See our House settlement guide for a comprehensive breakdown.

June 11, 2025: The NIL Go portal launched under the newly established College Sports Commission (CSC). All third-party NIL deals exceeding $600 must now be submitted to NIL Go for fair-market-value review by Deloitte.

July 1, 2025: Revenue sharing officially began with the 2025-26 academic year, allowing schools to pay athletes directly from institutional revenue for the first time.

These are real, consequential changes. But what they mean for your family depends almost entirely on your athlete’s sport — and that’s where the honest conversation gets uncomfortable.

Revenue sharing — what it actually is and who gets it

Under the House settlement, participating schools may share up to $20.5 million annually with student-athletes during the 2025-26 academic year. This cap represents approximately 22% of average athletic revenue across Power Four conferences and increases roughly 4% per year over the settlement’s ten-year term.

Participation is voluntary — schools “opt in.” Most Power Four schools have opted in. Most D2, D3, and NAIA schools either cannot afford to participate at meaningful levels or are not structured to do so.

Here’s what matters for soccer and volleyball families: The settlement establishes only the maximum each school can share — not how that money gets distributed across sports. And the distribution is where the math gets real.

Most schools that have publicly disclosed their distribution plans follow a model similar to the settlement’s back-payment formula, as reported by Sports Illustrated and CBS Sports:

• Football: approximately 75% of the revenue-share pool
• Men’s basketball: approximately 15%
• Women’s basketball: approximately 5%
• All other sports combined: approximately 5%

Schools including LSU (75% football, 15% men’s basketball) and North Carolina (four-sport allocation with football and men’s basketball receiving the majority) have publicly confirmed variations of this pattern. Oklahoma has signaled it will include women’s volleyball among its funded sports at higher levels — but this is the exception, not the standard approach.

What this means in practice: At a school with the full $20.5 million revenue-share pool, the entire allocation for all non-revenue sports combined might be approximately $1 million — split across men’s and women’s soccer, volleyball, baseball, softball, track and field, swimming, golf, tennis, and every other team. The mathematical reality is that direct revenue-share payments to individual soccer or volleyball athletes will be modest at best — and at many programs, zero.

This isn’t cynicism. It’s arithmetic.

Third-party NIL — what’s real for soccer and volleyball

This is where the gap between perception and reality is widest — and where families most need honest information.

The Washington Post published an investigative analysis in October 2024, examining $125 million in actual NIL disclosures across major universities. The findings for non-revenue sports:

• Colorado women’s volleyball: 112 NIL deals totaling approximately $36,000 — averaging around $320 per deal
• Oregon State men’s soccer: Approximately $5,700 across the entire team
• LSU women’s tennis: Zero disclosed NIL deals, despite reaching the second round of the NCAA tournament
• UCLA rowing: 11 deals totaling $490 — about $45 per deal on average

USA Volleyball, the national governing body, has published guidance explaining to athletes that while average NIL compensation across all D1 athletes is reported around $4,000, the median is approximately $60 per deal. The few extremely high-value deals distort the average dramatically. When a quarterback signs a $3 million deal and 99 other athletes each earn $50, the “average” is $30,050 — but the typical experience is $50.

Per Opendorse and On3 reporting, Power Four women’s sports average NIL earnings of $7,947 annually — a number heavily distorted by outliers. Group of Five women’s athletes average $1,425 annually. The median across all women’s NIL deals remains approximately $55-$60.

What soccer and volleyball families should realistically expect:

• Most college soccer and volleyball athletes will earn modest amounts through NIL — typically local business partnerships, camp coaching, or in-kind product deals
• A small number of athletes with significant social media followings can earn meaningful amounts, but this depends on the athlete’s individual brand, not the sport
• The headline-grabbing six-figure NIL deals for women athletes are almost exclusively in basketball, gymnastics, and a small handful of volleyball players with large social media presences
• NIL for soccer and volleyball is much more often $500-$2,000 per deal than $50,000

Every athlete’s situation is different. But entering the recruiting process expecting NIL to be a significant income stream for a soccer or volleyball player means planning around an outcome that the data shows is unlikely for the vast majority.

The international athlete reality

This section is uniquely important for soccer families. According to NCAA data analyzed by McCarter & English, approximately 34% of D1 men’s soccer players are international. In D1 men’s and women’s tennis, the percentage exceeds 60%.

Most international student-athletes cannot legally receive NIL compensation under current U.S. immigration law.

F-1 student visa restrictions prohibit most forms of employment, and NIL activities are typically classified as employment under federal regulations (8 CFR § 274a.1). Specifically:

• F-1 visa holders generally may not work off-campus without specific authorization
• NIL deals — including endorsements, paid social media content, autograph sessions, and paid appearances — typically do not qualify under any authorized work category
• The penalties for unauthorized work can include loss of visa status, removal from the United States, and ineligibility for future immigration benefits
• Some elite athletes pursue O-1 visas (extraordinary ability) or P-1 visas (internationally recognized athlete) to enable NIL income, but these have very high eligibility standards that most college athletes cannot meet

The Department of Homeland Security has not issued clear guidance on NIL for F-1 visa holders, leaving universities and athletes in a precarious legal position. As the Lowndes law firm analysis notes, this creates a situation where international athletes are theoretically eligible for NIL under NCAA rules but practically barred from participating under immigration law.

The Hofstra Journal of International Business & Law has published detailed analysis of this conflict, concluding that the current regulatory framework effectively excludes the majority of international student-athletes from NIL participation.

For families with international athletes: NIL should be treated as unavailable for planning purposes. The handful of exceptions are not the rule.

The NIL Go portal and what it means for new recruits

The compliance framework matters for families to understand, even if the dollar amounts for non-revenue sports are small.

The College Sports Commission (CSC) administers the NIL Go portal, which launched June 11, 2025. Under the current framework:

• All third-party NIL deals exceeding $600 must be submitted to NIL Go for review
• Deloitte serves as the fair-market-value reviewer
• Deals deemed “pay-for-play” or disguised recruiting inducements can be denied
• Athletes whose deals are not cleared face NCAA eligibility risk if they accept payment
• As of early 2026, only approximately $166 million in deals had been cleared through NIL Go — a small fraction of the estimated NIL market, suggesting significant non-compliance or reporting gaps in the broader system

For families during recruiting: Per the Butler Snow analysis of the post-House framework, coaches and collectives cannot use NIL as an explicit recruiting inducement. If a coach or collective representative promises specific NIL dollars during the recruiting process, that promise is technically a violation under current rules. The reality on the ground varies, but families should recognize that any NIL promise made during recruiting carries real risk for the athlete’s future eligibility.

If you encounter NIL promises during recruiting conversations, treat them as you would any unverifiable claim — note them, but don’t make decisions based on them.

What NIL should and shouldn’t factor into recruiting decisions

This is the practical guidance section — the part that actually helps your family make better decisions.

Should NOT factor heavily into soccer or volleyball recruiting decisions:

• The promise of large NIL earnings. Mathematically unlikely for the vast majority of athletes in these sports.
• Comparing programs based on revenue-sharing budgets. The differences for non-revenue sports are mostly negligible. A program with a $20.5M revenue-share pool and one with $8M may allocate functionally similar amounts to soccer or volleyball — which is to say, very little.
• Promises made by collectives during recruiting. These carry compliance risk and are not enforceable. Collective landscapes change, leadership turns over, and what’s promised today may not exist tomorrow.
• The “NIL star” narratives in media coverage. Statistical outliers, not representative of typical experience.

SHOULD factor into recruiting decisions — these are the variables that actually matter for soccer and volleyball recruits:

• Athletic fit at the program — position depth, class-year gaps, recruiting style (see roster intelligence)
• Academic fit and major availability — test scores, acceptance rates, graduation rates
• Coaching staff stability and program direction — tenure, recruiting networks, playing style
• Geographic preferences and family proximity
• Cost reality — including how athletic scholarships, academic aid, and need-based aid stack together (see our athletic scholarships guide)
• Roster opportunities and realistic playing-time projections

For most soccer and volleyball recruits, the variables that have always mattered for college decisions still matter most. NIL is real but secondary. Revenue sharing is real but minimal. Treating these as primary factors in choosing a program means optimizing for a small possibility while ignoring the substance of the college experience.

A few honest exceptions

There are cases where NIL does meaningfully impact non-revenue sport athletes. Being honest about them is part of being honest about the landscape:

• Athletes with significant social media followings can earn meaningful NIL through influencer-style deals — though this usually depends on the athlete’s individual brand and audience, not the sport itself
• Top-tier women’s volleyball athletes at programs with large fan bases — Wisconsin, Nebraska, Texas, and a few others — can attract larger NIL deals than the typical pattern suggests
• Athletes from in-state with strong local business connections sometimes find more NIL opportunities than out-of-state recruits, simply because local businesses want local faces
• Athletes whose families help cultivate brand opportunities — with awareness of compliance rules — sometimes earn more than the baseline

But none of these should drive program selection. They’re outcomes that can emerge once an athlete is at a program — not factors to predict or optimize during recruiting.

Every recruiting journey is different

No two athletes have the same NIL experience, just as no two athletes have the same recruiting journey. Some soccer and volleyball athletes will end up at programs that include their sport in revenue-share allocations; most will not. Some will land local NIL deals that provide meaningful supplemental income; most will earn modest amounts at best. Some international athletes will work with their universities to navigate the visa-and-NIL intersection; most will not have meaningful NIL income.

The honest answer for most families is that NIL and revenue sharing are real parts of the modern college landscape — but for soccer and volleyball recruits specifically, they should be understood, not over-weighted in decision-making. The recruiting process has always been about finding the right fit: the right program, the right academics, the right coaching staff, the right culture. NIL hasn’t changed that fundamental truth — even if the headlines suggest otherwise.

NIL and revenue-sharing rules continue to evolve rapidly. This article reflects the state of affairs as of May 2026. Families should verify current rules against the NCAA and College Sports Commission directly before making decisions.