Texas A&M boosters, a new NIL fund and big questions about what's next
This is the first time that a school’s dominant booster group has been so closely attached to a unit set up to pay players.
theathletic.com
The wording of the press release looked like something that might have come from any collective that has sprung up since name, image and likeness deals became part of college sports in 2021. Athletes, the release said, “will receive fair market value compensation to promote the organization’s mission through marketing services such as social media posts, appearances at events and speaking engagements.”
The difference? This didn’t come from a few-months-old NIL collective. It came from a 73-year-old booster club that in the 2021-22 school year raised $96.3 million through straight donations and donations tied to season-ticket packages for the athletic department it supports. Texas A&M’s 12th Man Foundation announced Wednesday that it has entered the NIL business, and this feels like yet another significant domino as the landscape of college sports remakes itself.
The foundation, which is affiliated with Texas A&M but not officially part of either the university or the athletic department, has created a marketing fund called the 12th Man+ Fund that would pay athletes to promote the mission of the foundation, which is to raise money to give to Texas A&M’s athletic department. So, theoretically, the 12th Man+ Fund could pay Aggies quarterback Conner Weigman or receiver Ainias Smith to promote the 12th Man Foundation.
This is the first time in the young history of NIL that a school’s dominant booster group has been this closely attached to a unit set up to pay players. It is modeled similarly to One Arkansas, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Razorback Foundation — the 12th Man Foundation’s Arkansas counterpart. But that is branded differently, and the Arkansas athletes are paid to promote charitable causes that aren’t affiliated with the athletic department. There is no attempt in the 12th Man Foundation’s case to differentiate the foundation and the NIL entity in terms of public perception.
Elsewhere in the article he says he asked an AD for comment and the AD said he’d been in the phone with his lawyers for 45min to figure out if they could do it too