Summary: College athletes are facing limitations on their choice of footwear due to lucrative school contracts with big brands, despite the new era of name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation. While athletes can now earn money from NIL endorsements, they are still required to wear the apparel provided by their schools. This poses a challenge as athletes are unable to wear their preferred shoes, impacting their earning potential and risking their performance due to ill-fitting footwear.
College athletes are now allowed to earn money through name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation deals, which include endorsements and promotions. However, these athletes are still bound by apparel contracts between their schools and big brands like Adidas and Nike.
Athletes like Harper Murray, Reilly Heinrich, and Ashley Le are required to wear the specific brand of shoes provided by their schools, regardless of personal preference. While they can endorse other brands, they are unlikely to wear them during competitions. This limitation restricts their ability to fully maximize their NIL earnings and potentially compromises their performance and safety if the shoes provided do not fit properly.
Ramogi Huma, the executive director of the advocacy group College Athletes Players Association, argues that athletes should have the freedom to choose the shoes they wear. He highlights two problems caused by the current restrictions: limited earning potential during competitions when athletes receive the most attention, and the potential health and safety risks of ill-fitting shoes. Huma emphasizes the importance of shoes that provide proper support and fit, especially in sports like volleyball that involve high levels of jumping and lateral movements.
Some states have attempted to address this issue by considering amendments that would allow athletes to wear shoes of their choice during mandatory team activities. However, these attempts have not been successful. Despite the challenges, new brands like Avoli are emerging to cater specifically to underserved markets, such as volleyball, and are partnering with athletes for NIL deals.
The debate around college athletes’ shoe choices goes beyond personal preference and impacts their earning potential, performance, and safety. The hope is that athletes will have more freedom in the future to choose the footwear that best suits their needs, while still respecting the contractual obligations between their schools and apparel brands.
Tags: college athletes, apparel contracts, name image and likeness, NIL compensation, shoe choices, athletic endorsements