As Women’s Hoops Surges, NIL Money Still Flows Mostly to Men, Records Show

As women’s college basketball reaches new heights in viewership, star power, and media deals, the dollars moving behind the scenes are still skewed toward the men’s game. A fresh look at name, image and likeness (NIL) disclosures, including documents reviewed by The Washington Post, shows that many of the most influential booster-backed collectives are channeling the bulk of their resources to male athletes. The contrast between booming interest in women’s hoops and the relatively modest NIL backing their players receive is sharpening debates about fairness, power, and what the next phase of college sports will look like under NIL.

Soaring Visibility, Stalled NIL Support: Women’s Basketball Still Playing Catch-Up

Women’s college basketball has transformed into a ratings powerhouse. The 2024 NCAA women’s championship game drew an average of 18.9 million viewers on ABC and ESPN — reportedly the most-watched basketball game, college or pro, in several years. Ticket demand for marquee women’s programs now rivals that of many men’s teams, and conference tournaments are selling out in advance.

Yet that surge of interest has not translated evenly into NIL income from booster collectives. Wealthy donors, alumni networks, and local business coalitions that organize NIL contributions remain heavily oriented toward men’s basketball and football, directing larger, guaranteed payouts to male athletes even on campuses where women’s programs are winning more and drawing comparable TV audiences.

Behind the scenes, athletic department staffers describe a marketplace evolving on two different tracks:

• Booster collectives concentrate on broad, roster-wide packages for men’s teams, often locking in every scholarship player at a set NIL rate.
• Women’s players are more reliant on individual brand deals, social content, and smaller partnerships negotiated one-by-one.
• Local sponsors frequently mirror donor behavior, reinforcing an assumption that men’s programs are the default “investment” even when women’s teams are delivering similar or stronger returns in fan engagement.

The result is visible in core NIL metrics such as appearance fees, guaranteed payments, and recurring promotional deals. Male athletes are more likely to receive substantial, collective-funded “roster deals,” while standout women’s players patch together income from a mix of brands, camps, and content.

Agents and coaches warn that this mismatch can distort competitive balance and send a confusing message to recruits. On one hand, female athletes see record audiences and viral highlights; on the other, the most lucrative NIL packages on many campuses still go to men’s rosters that may be generating less buzz and, in some cases, fewer wins.

How Structure and Culture Steer NIL Money Toward Men’s Programs

The NIL ecosystem is often described as a free market, but the flows of money are heavily shaped by longstanding habits and relationships. Internal financial records and tax filings show that when collectives allocate limited NIL funds, they overwhelmingly favor men’s sports, especially men’s basketball and football, even at schools where women’s basketball has become the marquee attraction.

Several structural and cultural patterns help explain why:

• Legacy donor networks: Many high-dollar contributors built their giving histories around men’s sports decades before NIL existed. Those same donors now sit on collective boards and advisory panels, making funding decisions that default to the men’s side.
• Leadership demographics: Collective boards, steering committees, and major-donor groups are still disproportionately male, with relatively few women or former women’s athletes at the table to advocate for women’s basketball.
• Selective “market” metrics: Pitch decks often emphasize men’s TV ratings while undervaluing women’s digital reach, social engagement, and younger fan demographics, which can be just as valuable to brands.
• Contract norms: Performance bonuses, appearance fees, and multi-year guarantees are more commonly embedded in deals offered to men’s players than to women’s players doing similar work.

The disparity becomes especially stark once on-court performance is compared side-by-side with NIL investment.

In many cases, women’s programs are carrying their schools deep into March while receiving a small fraction of the NIL support directed to underperforming men’s teams. Collectives often justify these allocations as “following the market,” but critics argue that the market itself is being defined by those same stakeholders, who choose which numbers to emphasize and whose potential to spotlight.

Women’s Basketball Players Build Their Own NIL Paths

Faced with uneven backing from booster collectives, women’s basketball players have increasingly embraced an entrepreneurial approach to NIL. Many treat their college careers as multi-year brand-building projects, using on-court success as a launchpad for media, coaching, and community-focused ventures.

Instead of waiting for a single, large collective deal, players are stacking multiple smaller revenue streams:

• Micro-merch drops — limited runs of jerseys, shirts, or custom designs timed to rivalry games, playoff runs, or viral highlights.
• Training and skill clinics — in-person camps, virtual sessions, and masterclasses targeted at youth players and club programs.
• Podcasting and media roles — recurring guest spots, co-hosting duties, or branded video series that pay per episode or per season.
• Live digital events — paid watch parties, livestream Q&As, and interactive breakdowns where fans can tip or subscribe.
• Affiliate and discount codes — commissions from sales of performance gear, nutrition products, and lifestyle brands aligned with their image.

This kind of diversification allows players to capitalize on what makes them unique: personality, style of play, community ties, and authenticity. A player with a modest collective-backed deal can still out-earn higher-funded peers by consistently creating content and connecting directly with a loyal audience.

The strategy aligns with broader digital trends. Influencer-marketing data show that women’s sports stars often drive higher engagement rates than their male counterparts, especially among Gen Z fans who prioritize relatability and social values over legacy brand names. For many women’s players, a vibrant online presence can become as important as any single NIL contract.

Closing the NIL Gender Gap: Policy Shifts and Transparency Tools

Legal experts, Title IX advocates, and some athletic administrators argue that the current NIL landscape is not an inevitable outcome of free choice, but a byproduct of opaque systems and inconsistent rules. With donor collectives largely operating outside traditional athletic department structures, oversight is thin and gender implications are rarely examined in a systematic way.

Reform proposals aim to make NIL ecosystems more transparent and accountable without capping what any athlete can earn. Among the most frequently discussed measures:

• Public NIL ledgers that disclose aggregate deal values by sport and gender, allowing athletes, recruits, and the public to see how funds are distributed.
• Independent audits of major collectives to review allocation patterns, flag extreme imbalances, and verify that agreements comply with existing laws.
• Title IX impact reviews before schools endorse or formally collaborate with NIL ventures, assessing whether institutional involvement could contribute to gender-based inequities.
• Uniform contract templates to help athletes understand their rights, limit hidden clauses, and reduce the power gap between inexperienced players and seasoned donors or agents.

Some athletic departments are also experimenting with internal benchmarks: tracking the ratio of marketing support, social media amplification, and donor access across men’s and women’s programs, and comparing those numbers to attendance, TV audiences, and digital engagement.

At the state level, lawmakers in multiple jurisdictions are weighing whether NIL structures should be treated similarly to other educational programs when it comes to anti-discrimination rules. That could mean requiring schools to monitor and report gender impacts of any NIL activities they endorse, host, or materially assist.

Civil rights scholars note that transparency alone will not solve the problem, but it would give athletes and their families leverage they currently lack. If donors knew that their NIL contributions could be compared across men’s and women’s programs in public reports, some might feel social or institutional pressure to diversify their support.

Looking Ahead: Will NIL Reinforce Old Hierarchies or Help Redefine Them?

Women’s college basketball has never been more visible or commercially compelling. Packed arenas, record-breaking TV audiences, and national sponsorships have upended outdated assumptions about who draws interest and revenue in college sports. Yet in the NIL marketplace — especially in booster-backed deals — many of the old hierarchies remain firmly in place.

The emerging question is whether the financial infrastructure will eventually adjust to the new reality on the court. If collective leaders, donors, and schools embrace transparency and intentionally broaden who gets backed, NIL could evolve into a powerful tool for gender equity, rewarding athletes in line with their true market impact.

If not, the risk is that NIL simply hardens historic biases in a new form: women’s basketball providing the excitement, headlines, and cultural momentum, while the largest booster checks continue to flow into the same locker rooms as before. How that tension is resolved will help determine whether the NIL era rewrites the rules of college sports — or merely updates the scorecard while leaving the underlying power dynamics largely unchanged.