The NIL Illusion: How Artificial Market Values Are Impacting College Athlete's Decisions

Inflated Numbers, Questionable Data, and the Nico Iamaleava Case Study

When the NCAA finally opened the door to Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation in 2021, it didn’t just change college sports — it commercialized amateurism. Almost overnight, elite high school prospects and top collegiate athletes began signing endorsement deals, creating personal brands, and making serious money. But with this new gold rush came a new problem: market distortion fueled by unverifiable NIL valuations.

Today, the NIL landscape is more Wall Street than weight room. And nowhere is this more apparent than in the highly visible — and increasingly controversial — case of Nico Iamaleava, the former five-star quarterback at Tennessee whose NIL deal reportedly exceeded $8 million. Now transferring to UCLA, Iamaleava has become the poster child of a growing concern: what happens when fictional figures drive real decisions?

The Problem with NIL Valuations

At the center of the valuation chaos are platforms like On3, which provide NIL “market values” based on a proprietary algorithm. These numbers look authoritative — and they influence everything from collective negotiations to transfer decisions — But here's the problem: Most NIL deals aren't publicly disclosed. We don’t have a standardized system for tracking these agreements, so platforms often rely on:

• Social media influence

• Athletic performance metrics

• Industry whispers and insider reports

This creates a system where NIL values are based more on perception than reality. And that leads to big problems — for athletes, schools, and professional scouts.

NIL Valuation Swings: Top Athletes and Unrealistic Expectations

Let’s look at a few top athletes who have experienced drastic swings in their NIL valuations — and how those numbers were often based on little more than speculation.

Arch Manning

• On3/Reported NIL Peak Valuation: $6.6M

• Current Status: Texas QB, family declined major NIL early on, and did not start his first two seasons with Texas

Mikey Williams

• On3/Reported NIL Peak Valuation: $3.5M+

• Current Status: Legal issues derailed his college debut, with recent NIL estimate <$500K

Jaden Rashada

• On3/Reported NIL Peak Valuation: $13M (Florida deal collapse)

• Current Status: Deal fell through; transferred to Arizona State, and then Georgia, with recent NIL estimate <$500K

Nico Iamaleava

• On3/Reported NIL Peak Valuation: $8M (Tennessee Collective)

• Current Status: Recently signed with UCLA, with an estimated NIL deal ~$1.5M

These inflated estimates became defacto benchmarks, shaping recruitment pitches, parental expectations, and athlete decisions. The reality? Many of these figures were based on rumors and media reports — without being grounded in public, provable contracts.

Nico Iamaleava: A Case Study in NIL Market Value Distortion

Nico Iamaleava, one of the top quarterbacks in the 2023 class, committed to Tennessee in 2022 with what was widely reported to be a massive NIL deal, allegedly valued at $8 million over four years via the Spyre Sports Group, a Tennessee-based NIL collective. This figure was based on rumors, leaks from NIL collectives, and media speculation — but for many, it became a gospel truth, setting the stage for Iamaleava’s early career.

The reality, however, is more complex. While Iamaleava is undoubtedly a talented young quarterback, his first year as the starting quarterback at Tennessee was a mixture of flashes and inconsistency. This reality did not match theearly, inflated expectations that his NIL value had set — and as a result, his reported NIL deal began to look like ahype-driven, speculative overestimation.

The Key Moments of the Iamaleava NIL Saga:

1. The Reported $8M NIL Deal. When Nico Iamaleava committed to Tennessee, his NIL deal was reported to be worth $8 million over four years. The deal was supposed to be a game-changer, helping Tennessee secure one of the top QBs in the nation. But it was based on limited information, with no public contracts or verification to substantiate such an enormous figure.

2. Early Struggles at Tennessee. Despite the high expectations surrounding his NIL valuation, the Iamaleava-era as Tennesee’s starting quarterback did not begin until his sophomore year (having redshirted his freshman year, purportedly as a condition in his NIL agreeent). While he showed promise under center in flashes, Iamaleava’s first season was far from smooth. His numbers didn’t immediately align with the NIL hype, and his development was slower than anticipated. This disparity between his NIL valuation and his actual performance raised questions about whether the deal had been driven more by media buzz than actual on-field success.

3. The Transfer Rumors to UCLA. After one season at Tennessee, rumors began swirling that Iamaleava had explored options to transfer during the winter transfer portal period, following demands for additional money from Tennessee. Such demands were rebuffed by Tennessee at that time, and then again during the spring portal period, leading to Iamaleava exploring a transfer to UCLA and other programs, purportedly seeking $4 million a year. While transfers are common in college football, the timing and context of Iamaleava’s rumored departure added fuel to the fire: Was this about money? Or was his development being hindered by unrealistic expectations tied to his inflated NIL value?

4. Impact of Speculative Data on NIL Deals. Platforms like On3, “insider sources” and NIL management/agents drive much of the speculation around athlete valuations, often releasing unverified data about contracts, worth, and potential earnings. Iamaleava’s $8 million deal was largely shaped by this. Some experts believe that if the deal was ever close to that figure, it may have been overvalued from the start, setting unrealistic expectations that did not align with Iamaleava’s early on-field performance.

The Hidden Cost of Unrealistic Valuations

NIL valuation platforms and agencies continue to push inflated figures to create buzz and demand. But there are consequences:

• Players chase offers, not development.

• Collectives overpay, then collapse when ROI doesn’t match.

• Programs pass the cost to fans, to pay for the additional cost to secure the player.

• Coaches lose locker room control trying to justify uneven payouts.

• Draft analysts begin penalizing players they perceive as distractions or mercenaries.

For Iamaleava, this could impact his NFL draft stock. Scouts are looking for consistency, maturity, and growth potential. The perception of a player who transfers — especially one tied to a huge NIL deal — might hurt his draft stock, even if his talent is undeniable.

For Tennessee, and all other athletic programs, the ever increasing “market value” demands, place immense pressure on their budgets and operation. Out of the 230 institutions, between 18 to 25 are self sustaining (e.g. cash positive), with the others requiring subsidies from the university and/or fans to cover the annual deficits. For instance, Tennessee's athletic department implemented a 10% "talent fee" on football season tickets and a 4.5% ticket price hike to help cover NIL-related expenses. This move came after an agreement to pay $2.78 billion in damages to athletes and future revenue sharing commitments of up to $21 million annually starting the next fall. The 2024 college football national champions, The Ohio State University reported an operating deficit of nearly $38 million in the 2023-2024 fiscal year, spending $292.7 million while generating $254.9 million in revenue.

How "Market Value" Data Is Collected: A Deep Dive into NIL Valuations

When you hear a number like $8 million attached to an athlete’s NIL market value, it might sound like it’s grounded in solid data. But how is that number really calculated?

Here’s a breakdown of how NIL collectives, schools, and platforms like On3 gather and interpret data to estimate market values — and why that process often creates more questions than answers.

1. Data Collection Methods

NIL collectives, platforms like On3, and even schools looking to understand a recruit’s market value pull data from several key sources:

A. Social Media Analytics

A large portion of an athlete’s market value is determined by their social media presence. For many athletes, especially in the high school and college ranks, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter are powerful platforms that attract sponsors, brands, and fans alike. Social media engagement — measured by things like follower counts, likes, comments, shares, and overall reach — is often seen as a direct indicator of brandability.

• On3’s NIL Valuation Algorithm places a heavy emphasis on social media influence. For example, athletes with a massive following or viral moments are seen as more valuable because they can move products, attract sponsors, and drive engagement for brands.

• Platforms like OpenDorse also aggregate this data, tracking engagement metrics and offering recommendations to brands on how best to approach athletes for NIL deals.

B. Athletic Performance and On-field Metrics

NIL collectives and platforms also factor in athletic performance. This includes a range of data points, from basic statistics like rushing yards or touchdown passes to more advanced metrics such as QBR (Quarterback Rating) or PER (Player Efficiency Rating) for basketball players.

• On3, for instance, blends performance data with perceived future potential. An athlete’s past performances, current rankings (such as five-star status), and projection for future success are used to increase or decrease their market value.

• However, performance metrics alone can be misleading if they don’t account for context (e.g., whether an athlete’s success is driven by their own skill or the system they’re playing in).

C. Media Buzz and News Cycles

Athletes who are frequently mentioned in media outlets, whether through hype, rumors, or actual coverage, see their market value affected. This “buzz” can be both positive or negative.

• A quarterback like Arch Manning, whose name is tied to one of the most famous families in football, sees his NIL value rise with each media mention. Whether it’s news of his recruitment or coverage of his high school games, the Manning family legacy becomes a highly marketable asset.

• Even negative media coverage can influence value. For example, Jaden Rashada’s NIL value surged after he became a highly sought-after recruit. However, when the $13 million Florida deal fell apart, the perception of his marketability shifted, dragging his value down despite his undeniable talent.

D. Rumors and Insider Information

This is where things get murky. NIL values are often influenced by rumors, speculations, and insider gossip — most of which are unverified or inaccurate.

• Collectives and schools often get leaked information about deals, the rumored value of a contract, or a player’s intention to pursue higher-value offers, even if that data isn’t confirmed publicly.

• Platforms like On3 sometimes pick up this unverified data and incorporate it into their calculations. For instance, if a player is rumored to be negotiating a high-end endorsement deal, their market value might spike — even if the deal doesn’t materialize.

2. The Problem: False Data and Misleading Values

While there are many legitimate ways to calculate an athlete’s market value, the problem arises when the data is either incomplete, inaccurate, or intentionally manipulated.

Transfer culture and the rush to secure massive NIL deals can interrupt an athlete’s development. For a quarterback like Iamaleava, jumping between schools or programs (especially with NIL distractions) can delay his ability to fully settle into a system, build chemistry with teammates, and master the nuances of the game. This can lead to:

• Delayed growth as a player: College football is about development. If an athlete is constantly chasing new deals or transferring for bigger NIL incentives, they risk losing precious learning opportunities.

• NFL draft stock concerns: As we’ve seen with other high-profile players (like JT Daniels or Tate Martell), too many transfers can raise red flags. NFL scouts are looking for signs of stability and focus, and a series of transfers or rumored NIL-driven moves can signal that a player’s priorities may not align with long-term success.

• Declining “Market Value” Following Initial Hype and Fallout Failing to Secure the “Bag”: Jaden Rashada's market value, in terms of his NIL deal, initially was reported to be $13.85 million over four years with the University of Florida. However, this deal was later disputed, and Rashada ultimately left Florida and is now playing for the University of Georgia, following a stint at Arizona State. On3.com currently values his NIL at $450,000

For Nico Iamaleava, his NIL valuation of $8 million was likely driven more by media hype and rumor than actual, verified contracts. The data behind this deal was unverifiable, and as Iamaleava’s early career showed, inflated market expectations can have a serious impact on an athlete’s development, mindset, and long-term career trajectory.

The Future of NIL: What Needs to Change?

To restore sanity to the NIL market, several changes are needed:

1. Transparent NIL Deal Registry – Platforms should disclose ranges or structures of deals, helping to ground expectations and prevent inflated figures from distorting the market.

2. Independent Valuation Audits – Third-party audits should be introduced to ensure the integrity of NIL data and provide credible benchmarks for athlete compensation.

3. Athlete Management/Agent Certification – Implementing and strengthening controls over Athlete management/agents to protect athletes from conflicts of interest and misinformation.

4. Standardized NIL Contracts: Implementing uniform contracts with clear terms, including buyout provisions, can provide stability and protect both athletes and institutions.

5. Financial Oversight: Establishing financial oversight mechanisms can ensure that athletic departments operate within their means and that NIL expenditures are sustainable.

6. Revenue Sharing Models: Developing equitable revenue-sharing models can help distribute financial resources more evenly across programs and reduce disparities.

7. Educational Programs: Providing financial literacy education to athletes can help them manage their earnings responsibly and make informed decisions about their careers.

Conclusion: The Illusion of the NIL Market

Nico Iamaleava is just one example of how inflated NIL valuations — often based on unverified data — can distort bothathletic development and career trajectory. While these market values may seem like a win for athletes, they can become dangerous when not grounded in reality.

As college football — and college sports more broadly — continue to adapt to this new economic landscape, it’s essential that athletes, schools, and fans understand the risks of relying on numbers that may not be based on anything but hype

If college sports want to avoid a bubble that bursts under the weight of false data, it must start valuing truth as much as talent. Only then can athletes like Iamaleava focus on their on-field growth without the distraction of inflated financial expectations.