They are two separate payment channels and players can receive both. Revenue sharing is the school paying its athletes directly out of a capped pool. NIL is a third party paying an athlete for the use of his name, image and likeness. Different payer, different rules, different ceiling.
| Revenue sharing | NIL | |
|---|---|---|
| Who pays | The school, from athletic department revenue | A third party: a brand, a business or a collective |
| Started | July 1, 2025, under the House settlement | July 2021 |
| Capped? | Yes. Roughly $21.3 million per school for 2026-27, across all sports | No cap on what a third party can pay |
| How the cap is set | About 22 percent of average power-conference athletic revenue, rising roughly 4 percent a year | Set by the market |
| Who is eligible | Athletes at schools that opted in | Any athlete, scholarship or walk-on |
| What is being bought | Participation, effectively a share of revenue | Promotional value: appearances, endorsements, content |
| Survives a transfer? | No. It is an agreement with that school | Brand deals often do. Collective deals usually do not |
| Oversight | Cap enforcement across the opted-in schools | Deals above $600 with school-associated entities get reviewed |
| Taxable | Yes | Yes |
| Year | Per-school revenue sharing cap |
|---|---|
| 2025-26, year one | About $20.5 million |
| 2026-27, current | About $21.3 million |
| Annual growth | Roughly 4 percent |
| 2034-35, projected | Around $32.9 million |
Why Both Exist and Why That Causes Friction
The simplest way to hold the distinction is that revenue sharing is pay and NIL is endorsement. One is the school compensating an athlete for being part of the product; the other is an outside party buying access to his name. That separation is also the source of most of the current disputes, because a donor collective sits awkwardly between the two. A collective payment is technically third-party NIL money, which means it is not capped, but in practice much of it functions as roster compensation. That is exactly why deals above $600 involving school-associated entities now get reviewed for whether they represent a genuine business purpose rather than a workaround. For a player the practical upshot is that the two channels answer different questions. Revenue sharing is largely about how much the school has and how it chooses to allocate it, with football taking the largest share at most programs. NIL is about how marketable he is, which is why a backup with a large following can out-earn a starter on the NIL side while trailing him badly on the revenue sharing side. Our revenue sharing explainer covers the cap mechanics in detail, and the governing framework is published at NCAA.org.
The Bottom Line
Revenue sharing is capped money paid directly by the school and does not follow a player who transfers. NIL is uncapped third-party money for endorsement value and often does. Most scholarship players at power-conference schools now receive some of each.