| Subject: Good article on the NIL |
Author:
Washington Post
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Monday, October 28, 08:52:09am
Author Host/IP: syn-067-248-227-222.res.spectrum.com/67.248.227.222
Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/interactive/2024/nil-money-deals-college-sports-athlete-pay/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f006
The hidden NIL economy of college sports
For autographs, $60,000 to an Illinois men’s basketball player.
For a Nerf endorsement, $20,000 to a UCLA softball player.
For working a camp, $2,000 to a Minnesota volleyball player.
For merchandise royalties, $122 to a Colorado women’s soccer player.
For a public appearance, $10 to a Maryland gymnast.
Yes, college athletes are getting paid. But how? And how much? A Post analysis of $125 million in payments reveals the patterns and disparities of a murky NIL market.
By Albert Samaha, Emily Giambalvo, Jesse Dougherty and Artur Galocha
October 21, 2024 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
23 min
502
It’s been three years since the NCAA started allowing college athletes to make money from their personal brands — their “name, image and likeness,” or NIL.
In that time, college athletes, previously limited to scholarship money and under-the-table handouts, have earned payments for brand endorsements, charity work, autograph signings and other services big and small. Many have done so while driving exposure and revenue for massive public universities.
But what this NIL economy actually looks like has remained largely hidden, limited to sporadic anecdotes, unreliable estimates from the NIL industry and anonymous summary data compiled by the NCAA.
Colleges and boosters say that secrecy protects student-athletes. But efforts by The Washington Post to obtain NIL records from public schools reveal a lack of transparency that forces many athletes to navigate an unfamiliar economy in the dark, leaving their interests at the whims of the powers holding the purse strings.
Lincoln
What we found
The Post used public records laws to request NIL records from 56 public universities in major college sports conferences. Though most schools refused to release any information, reporters ultimately obtained and analyzed records encompassing $125 million in deals from 14 Division I public schools.
The result is an unprecedented look into the first three years of the NIL economy — a period of financial chaos, legal confusion and secret deals in the fierce competition for top players. The documents, which provide details on roughly 22,000 individual NIL transactions, reveal:
Dollar bill number 1
Disparities in whether — and how — universities maintain or disclose NIL records, making a comprehensive nationwide analysis impossible.
With the bulk of funding shrouded in mystery, athletes have limited information to determine their market value.
How booster “collectives,” run mostly by men, distribute the majority of NIL funds to athletes in men’s sports.
Including in basketball, where women appear to earn far less money from boosters even amid a historic boom in television ratings and revenue.
Dollar bill number 3
How private companies can bankroll publicly funded sports programs with little scrutiny.
Including at the University of Colorado, where a production company with close ties to football coach Deion Sanders has provided nearly $600,000 to the team’s players.
Dollar bill number 4
That the majority of NIL payments are small-money deals — less than $500, and often much smaller.
The lucrative contracts that make headlines, records show, are reserved for a select few athletes. Most earn very little, if anything.
How athletes get paid remains at the center of a debate reshaping college sports.
In May, the NCAA and its major conferences agreed to a multibillion-dollar legal settlement, which recently received preliminary approval from a judge but isn’t finalized. If ultimately approved this spring, it would permit schools to directly share revenue with athletes. The NCAA is seeking to limit the influence of deep-pocketed boosters in the NIL market. In another case, a judge has ruled athletes could qualify as university employees, an issue on which the National Labor Relations Board continues to deliberate.
Stars such as Caitlin Clark can make big money through endorsement deals, but most female athletes don’t earn as much as men. (Sarah Stier/Getty Images)
The NIL economy, in other words, could look a lot different in the coming years, even if it’s hard to see a world in which a motivated donor can’t help their favorite team win. But as these debates play out in public view, the burgeoning economy at stake operates mostly out of sight.
Jackson
How we found it
The Post filed state public records requests to every public school in the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC and Pac-12. Private universities — including sports brand names Southern California, Notre Dame and Duke — aren’t subject to open records laws.
The requests sought all documents tracking NIL deals from July 2021 onward, including itemized lists of transactions, the amounts paid to athletes in each sport, the funding source for each payment and the services required in the contracts.
College Sports’ Money Machine
The Post spent months seeking documents from public universities that reveal how — and how much — college athletes earn from their “name, image and likeness,” or NIL.
Though many states require athletes to disclose deals, most schools fought The Post’s requests. But an analysis of roughly $125 million worth of deals, detailed in this story, offers a vivid window into a hidden and often inequitable marketplace.
The records reveal stark inequities in basketball, even as women’s basketball explodes in popularity. While women earn considerably less, The Post found, they work harder for what they do earn, leveraging social media to maximize earnings.
The records also show how one private company — in this case, a production company with ties to Colorado coach and former NFL star Deion Sanders — can shape the market at one school.
Previous
Next
Twenty-four states require athletes at public universities to disclose NIL deals to their schools, making them potentially subject to an open-records search. Some schools in the other 26 states mandate that athletes disclose deals to their athletic departments, too. But every public school interprets its state’s laws differently, meaning information about an NIL deal that one school makes public may stay hidden by a school down the highway.
The deals in The Post’s dataset are based on each university’s official records, which contain the disclosures athletes have filed but could be missing any number of deals that athletes haven’t submitted.
College 5
College 6
Thirty-one schools didn’t provide records in response to The Post’s records requests, citing privacy laws and other factors.
Twenty-five schools sent documents, though not all were useful.
Eight schools sent summaries that contained few NIL statistics and lacked most of the numbers The Post asked for.
Oregon, Arkansas, Minnesota and Washington State sent documents listing NIL deals their athletes disclosed but omitted some or all financial information.
Five schools sent data showing the total amount of NIL money for each sports program.
Eight schools sent datasets listing the dollar amount for every NIL payment their athletes received, offering the most detailed insight into an otherwise opaque economy.
The records from those eight schools include details from around 22,000 individual NIL payments worth $35 million total. (Oregon State redacted the value from 23 deals, citing student privacy laws that applied to those transactions.) Only Colorado and UCLA listed both the vendor and the sport of the athlete for each deal. Kansas and Purdue did not disclose the sport of the athlete.
The data begins in 2021, when athletes began profiting through NIL deals, and runs through around the time the 2023-24 school year ended — with the exception of Kansas’s records, which stop in January 2024.
Grant
The star system
With enough sifting, three main marketplaces emerge. Athletes earn money from corporate brands paying for their endorsement, from sales of merchandise and signed memorabilia and from booster-led NIL collectives. Collectives often pay de facto salaries in exchange for various services, such as charity work or meet and greets.
Most of the biggest single payments came from corporations, which pay typically based on social media clout.
Forty-three of the deals in the records reached $100,000 or higher. Many could be linked to a sport, giving insight into which programs fuel large payments, but not a specific athlete. A smaller number could be linked to well-known athletes who posted on social media about those companies, opening a window to the lucrative deals available to a rarefied group of superstars.
$100,000 and more
Payments of $100,000 or more
The largest transaction in our dataset was $1.2 million for an unnamed athlete at Kansas. It’s labeled “NIL rights.”
Men
Women
Unknown
UCLA’s records include $300,000 from Danone, $285,000 from Sanofi and $250,000 from Bubbl’r – all brands endorsed by gymnast Jordan Chiles, a two-time Olympian with more than 2 million social media followers.
A $150,000 payment from an ad agency’s campaign promoting milk appears to be for UCLA basketball player Kiki Rice, who has 89,000 Instagram followers.
Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders, whose dad is superstar coach Deion Sanders, has deals with Overtime, Google and KFC that appear to be valued at $400,000.
Bubbl’r promotion Chiles shared on Instagram.
Shedeur Sanders in a KFC commercial.
With brands paying for marketing potential, players with robust online engagement naturally can out-earn teammates who outperform them in games. LSU men’s basketball player Trace Young, for instance, played a total of two minutes last season. But with more than 350,000 followers across social media platforms, he scored endorsement deals that enabled him to gift all of his teammates with electric scooters each worth around $1,000, according to two of his teammates. (LSU provided only aggregated data, not information about individual deals.)
Shelomi Sanders, the daughter of Colorado football coach Deion Sanders, played 11 minutes for the Colorado women’s basketball team last season. But she had nearly 700,000 followers across TikTok and Instagram, where she posted ads for Marriott and Meta. The school’s NIL records show that a women’s basketball player signed deals with those companies that added up to $42,500. That’s 42 percent of the total NIL income disclosed by last season’s team, which reached the Sweet 16.
Colorado athletic department spokesperson Steve Hurlbert said that the school’s NIL records contain “a fraction” of what athletes have received because “many” athletes don’t disclose their NIL deals, despite a state law that requires them to do so.
Shelomi Sanders played just 11 minutes for the Colorado women’s basketball team last year, but her social media following has earned her lucrative endorsements. (David Zalubowski/AP)
But high-earning female athletes such as Sanders, UCLA gymnast Jordan Chiles and UCLA basketball player Kiki Rice are outliers, as are stars such as Caitlin Clark, whose alma mater, Iowa, did not provide records. In records that categorized NIL income by sport or gender, only 18 percent of the total value of all payments went to women.
Predictably, the bulk of NIL money has gone to athletes in football and men’s basketball, which generate the most revenue and mainstream attention, thanks to multimillion-dollar media rights deals that turn standout performers into celebrities.
Though no Illinois men’s basketball player had more than 50,000 Instagram followers, one received $163,000 for posting on the platform in September 2022. At California, men’s basketball players received by far the largest share of NIL money, including two deals worth more than $350,000 and paid out in monthly installments within a year.
Among the schools that provided records, no program earned more NIL income than the Texas football team, which disclosed $20.8 million in deals from July 2021 to July 2024. Next highest was LSU football, which disclosed $8.7 million over that period.
Colorado’s football players signed 20 six-figure deals, nearly all of them linked to the team’s two biggest stars: Shedeur Sanders, who has close to 2 million Instagram followers and is the son of Coach Deion Sanders, and Travis Hunter, who has 1.6 million Instagram followers.
While most of those six-figure deals came from major brands such as Gatorade and KFC, three such payments came from a lesser-known company with deep ties to Deion Sanders. Records show that SMAC Entertainment, a management and production company that represents Deion Sanders, two of his sons and Hunter, paid Colorado football players a total of nearly $600,000 for appearing on and promoting a docuseries it produced, “Coach Prime,” which followed the team during the 2023 season and was sold to Amazon’s streaming service. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post.) In addition to the three six-figure payments, SMAC issued another for $85,000, five more for at least $15,000 and 106 for $500.
Across the records, football players earned far more high-value NIL payments than athletes in other sports. At the six schools that labeled deals with the athlete’s sport, football players collected about half of the payments worth at least $20,000, and men’s basketball players received nearly a quarter.
20k-100k
Payments from $20,000 to $99,999
Football
Men’s basketball
Other men’s sports
Women’s sports
Unknown
Football players received 67 payments of this size.
A Maryland football player earned $80,000 for an appearance.
A sport was not disclosed for payments from Kansas and Purdue.
Eighteen payments in this range went to women’s gymnasts, all from UCLA.
A California men’s basketball player earned about $415,000 for the year in monthly payments.
One revenue source that drives these inequities are booster-led “collectives,” which pay players based on their projected value on the field — at least according to those doling out the cash.
Collectives raise money from donors ranging from big-money boosters to everyday fans. They also partner with businesses to pay athletes. They channel most of their resources toward football and men’s basketball, competing in bidding wars for recruits and transfers, while making sure their own players keep earning enough to turn down rival suitors.
While the NCAA technically doesn’t allow players to get paid for their play, collectives can offer players as much money as they want for low-lift tasks, such as public appearances, charity work or posting advertisements on social media, effectively establishing de facto salaries or signing bonuses.
The Texas football team disclosed $20.8 million in NIL deals from July 2021 to July 2024, the highest for any program that provided data. (Alex Slitz/Getty Images)
The next-highest total belonged to LSU football, which disclosed $8.7 million in NIL income over that period. (Tyler Kaufman/AP)
The secrecy veiling NIL collective deals, which sometimes include language barring athletes from sharing financial details, leaves players at the whims of boosters, often with no contracts to enforce their promises.
Jaden Rashada, a top quarterback prospect, revoked his commitment to Florida in early 2023, then sued the school, claiming that football coaches reeled him in with a deal that boosters were unable to fulfill. In the middle of last season, a Michigan State collective informed football players that it was suddenly halting the payments they expected. And three games into this season, UNLV’s starting quarterback announced he would sit out the rest of the year because payments, which his agent said were promised by an assistant coach, didn’t come through.
Only records from UCLA, Colorado and Purdue identified when payments came from a collective. Many were worth between $1,000 and $20,000 — not the biggest transactions, but big enough to help players accumulate money over time. At Purdue, 460 payments from the collective are described as “monthly installments,” with each worth, on average, about $8,000.
Collective
How booster collectives pitch in
The records from UCLA, Purdue and Colorado included details about those schools’ official collectives, where close to 70 percent of payments ranged from $1,000 to $19,999.
$20,000
to $99,999
$100,000
or more
$1,000 to $19,999
Less than $1,000
UCLA
106
54
6
7
Purdue
11
724
45
Seven payments from UCLA’s collective were for at least $100,000.
Colorado
464
390
Payments from $1,000 to $19,999
Collectives:
UCLA
Purdue
Colorado
Other payments at UCLA, Colorado and Purdue
Payments at schools that did not disclose vendors
The biggest payment from Colorado’s collective was $12,716 to a Nordic skier. But the bulk of the money from Buffs4Life went to football and men’s basketball players.
Purdue’s collective distributed more than $5 million, but the school didn’t disclose the athlete’s sport for each transaction. Ninety-three percent of the collective’s payments were between $1,000 and $19,999.
All of the payments from UCLA’s collective went to athletes in men’s sports.
Five schools
did not specify
whether
payments were
from the school’s
collective.
UCLA’s official collective, which until recently was called Men of Westwood, has distributed roughly $2 million through NIL deals — all to football, men’s basketball and baseball players, the records show. The deals ranged from a $450,000 payment to a football player to 103 deals worth $500 apiece to football players for what was described as a “holiday post” on social media. Throughout 2023, the collective issued 46 payments worth between $1,000 and $5,000 to men’s basketball players, mostly for interviews, radio ads, and a March Madness event.
In addition to these payments, six deals with UCLA men’s basketball players — together worth $450,000 — are labeled as public appearances with a charity organization, Team First Foundation, listing the vendor contact as Ken Graiwer, the collective’s CEO.
Though Men of Westwood’s website featured women’s basketball players, no athlete from a women’s sport disclosed a payment from the collective over the two academic years after it began operating in summer 2022. In late 2023, Men of Westwood launched a partner collective, Champion of Westwood, focused on women’s and Olympic sports, but out of the 952 transactions in UCLA’s NIL records, which run through May, none listed Champion of Westwood. A UCLA spokesperson said women’s basketball players have signed deals through the collective but they haven’t yet been disclosed by athletes or inputted by officials.
Less than two weeks after The Post contacted UCLA and Men of Westwood for this story, the collective announced a restructure: Now Champion of Westwood is the umbrella organization for all sports, with a Men of Westwood branch focusing on men’s basketball.
Title IX
Title IX need not apply
For 50 years, federal law has required schools to treat men’s and women’s sports equitably. But since schools don’t pay NIL money directly the market isn’t subject to Title IX. That means the flow of money to football and men’s basketball contributes to a stark gender disparity in the distribution of NIL income, even in sports, such as men’s and women’s basketball, where the gap in popularity and influence is shrinking and by some measures has vanished.
At Maryland, Washington, California and Virginia, the men’s basketball teams have disclosed at least eight times as much NIL money as the women’s basketball teams, according to the records. The same is true at Texas, where the women have won more regular season and NCAA tournament games than the men’s team in the NIL era and cumulatively have more than twice as many social media followers on their personal accounts. The women’s team disclosed $435,000 from NIL, the records show, while the men’s team reported $4.8 million.
At the 12 schools that provided NIL data categorized by sport or gender, men outearned women $92 million to $19 million. At Texas A&M, 98 percent of all money earned from disclosed NIL deals from July 2021 to February 2024 went to men’s sports, according to the records. A Texas A&M spokesperson said the school hired a new athletic director in March who “is very supportive of all 20 of our athletics programs.”
In the NIL era, the Texas women’s basketball team has won more games than their male counterparts but has earned considerably less. (Brendall O’Banon/NCAA Photos/Getty Images)
Boosters’ focus on football and men’s basketball fuels a sharp gender divide in how college athletes get paid. Men are more likely to get paid for potential performance, records and interviews show, while women have to work at developing large social media followings.
The largest deals for athletes in women’s sports were from corporate endorsements. UCLA softball player Maya Brady, who is Tom Brady’s niece and has 122,000 Instagram followers, posted an ad for Nerf, which records show signed a five-figure deal with a UCLA softball player. Rice posted an ad for a campaign promoting milk, which records show signed a six-figure deal with a UCLA basketball player. And the seven biggest deals for UCLA gymnastics — all with companies Chiles has advertised — were worth a combined $1.3 million.
Thanks in large part to two-time Olympic gymnast Jordan Chiles, the earnings of female UCLA athletes are nearly on par with those of male athletes. (Andy Hancock/NCAA Photos/Getty Images)
The Olympics raise the profiles of athletes who compete, such as Chiles, earning them sponsorships that, before the NIL era, would have been unattainable while maintaining NCAA eligibility. The women’s swimming and diving team at Virginia, which has won four straight NCAA titles and produced Olympians such as Kate Douglass and Gretchen Walsh, has earned $1.1 million in NIL money — exceeding the income disclosed by the football team and encapsulating 31 percent of the school’s total haul since July 2021.
With a boost from Chiles’s endorsements, UCLA’s women’s athletes disclosed nearly as much ($3.2 million) as its men’s athletes ($3.4 million), without much apparent help from the school’s collective. It was one of two schools — among the 12 for which The Post has the relevant data — where women earned around as much as men, thanks to the financial opportunities of the influencer economy. The other was LSU, with its well-known women’s basketball team and an NCAA-champion gymnastics team that includes social media star Olivia Dunne. Women’s sports programs at LSU disclosed payments worth $10.6 million over the past three years compared to $12 million for the school’s men.
Powered by stars Angel Reese and Flau’jae Johnson, LSU’s women’s basketball team collectively had more than 13 million followers across platforms last season, compared with less than half a million for the men. With disclosed payments totaling $5.5 million over the past three years, the women’s basketball team had the second-highest NIL income at LSU, trailing only the $8.7 million of the football program and more than tripling the income of the men’s basketball team.
But LSU’s women were an exception. Of the 11 schools that provided The Post with sport-specific data, it was the only women’s basketball team to disclose more NIL money than its men’s counterpart — even as the women’s game grows in mainstream popularity, often matching the television ratings of men’s broadcasts.
With more limited NIL opportunities, the women of college sports have had to find other ways to raise their income.
Coins
A few bucks at a time
The plan to remake college sports could lead to a revenue-sharing model that raises the income floor for all athletes. But until then — and possibly beyond then for athletes in smaller conferences — a college sports economy without minimum wages or salary caps will continue to be marked by massive wealth gaps, the records show.
The biggest NIL deals have made national headlines. Texas Tech’s collective signed softball pitcher NiJaree Canady to a deal worth more than $1 million after she transferred from Stanford, The Athletic reported. In his lawsuit, quarterback recruit Rashada claimed that the University of Florida’s main collective failed to live up to its promise to pay him $13.85 million in NIL money — and that the University of Miami had previously offered him $9.5 million.
The vast majority of NIL deals, though, involve significantly smaller payments, the records show.
Of the more than 22,000 transactions in The Post’s dataset, nearly 13,000 were worth less than $100. Purdue’s records included roughly 8,000 of those transactions, in part because of how a merchandise company disclosed sales. At other schools, payments worth less than $100 accounted for anywhere from 18 percent of NIL transactions at UCLA to 60 percent at Illinois.
Deals buckets
Number
of payments
Total value
43
$7.2 MILLION
$100,000
or more
$8.3 MILLION
$20,000 to
99,999
236
$1,000 to
$19,999
4,377
$17.4 MILLION
$1.7
MILLION
$100 to
$999
4,588
$289,463
Less than
$100
12,776
Around 7,700 of these were Campus Ink transactions with Purdue athletes.
Athletes receive a small cut of merchandise sales. Purdue’s records, for example, contain around 2,900 payments worth less than $3 apiece from Campus Ink, which manufactures branded apparel and shares a portion of every sale with athletes. At the time, Purdue logged most — possibly all — of its athletes’ individual Campus Ink sales as stand-alone NIL deals, according to a company spokesperson, who noted that any payout less than $3 probably would be for a team shirt that splits profits among the entire roster.
When Purdue later started logging Campus Ink payments on a roughly biweekly basis, the median transaction value increased, the records show, but only to $58 per payment.
Players can occasionally earn more. The day the Purdue men’s basketball team advanced to the Final Four, Campus Ink recorded $18,300 in payments to Purdue athletes. (The records do not specify the athlete’s sport for each transaction.) Four athletes received at least $1,500 from the merchandise company, including one who earned $8,000. When the company disclosed more NIL payments nearly three weeks later, four athletes received at least $1,300, with one earning $6,200.
But most of the time, whether the checks are coming from Campus Ink or elsewhere, the payments are small.
Some deals are for goods instead of money. Of the transactions that included a payment type, just under 5 percent were labeled “product/equity” or in kind. One deal, valued at $50,000, noted that a Colorado football player received a car. But most product deals carried much lower values, including some that listed the monetary value as zero, indicating possible inconsistencies in how these deals are logged.
Several UCLA rowers signed a product deal with a yoga studio, and Colorado women’s tennis players had deals with a waffle restaurant.
At Minnesota, which did not provide payment amounts for every deal, a gymnast disclosed that a company was “sending me clothing to post on my instagram.” At least 13 deals involved football players posting on social media in exchange for “food.” One football player disclosed a deal he wasn’t getting paid for: “A guy is making shirts with my name on it. I’m letting him do this for free.”
In a system that pays athletes not for their labor but for their presumptive value in a highly skewed market, athletes at some major conference sports programs disclosed deals that amounted to little to nothing.
The 112 NIL deals Colorado women’s volleyball players signed amounted to around $36,000.
Oregon State men’s soccer players received about $5,700.
The wrestling team at Illinois earned less than $2,000.
The rowing team at UCLA signed 11 deals valued at a total of $490.
At LSU, athletes disclosed around $23 million in NIL payments from July 2021 to July 2024. But the women’s tennis team, which reached the second round of last season’s NCAA tournament, helped prove that for many athletes, amateurism is alive and well: They didn’t disclose a single dollar.
About this story
Additional reporting by Nate Jones. Design by Brianna Schroer. Story editing by Joe Tone and Meghan Hoyer. Graphics editing by Manuel Canales. Photo editing by Toni Sandys. Design editing by Virginia Singarayar. Copy editing by Ryan Romano.
Methodology
Through state public records requests, The Post sought NIL data from public universities about payments from July 2021 to July 2024. Eight schools — California, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Oregon State, Purdue and UCLA — provided itemized reports of NIL deals, omitting the names of athletes. Kansas and Purdue did not include the sport of the athlete for each deal. Only UCLA, Colorado and Purdue included vendor names, while other schools included broad categories to describe the deals.
Schools may differ in how they record a deal paid out in installments, and in how they log the value of a deal that provides an athlete with a product rather than a payment. A California official said some transactions in the school’s records represented the sum of monthly payments, which The Post separated into the appropriate number of individual payments.
Payments worth $0 were excluded from most of the analysis, as were 23 from Oregon State — primarily for football, but also including baseball, men’s basketball and women’s gymnastics — for which the school redacted the value, citing student privacy laws.
The Post worked to make sure its data covered roughly the same time frame. The earliest deal logged in UCLA’s data is from September 2021, and the school’s records didn’t include any deals with a submission date in July or August of any year. UCLA officials did not respond to an email asking for clarity about those gaps. Kansas provided data that ends in January 2024. The detailed data for deals at other schools all run through at least May 2024.
Six schools — LSU, Texas, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech, Virginia and Washington — provided only aggregated data. Texas A&M separated totals only by gender and included deals through February 2024. The others listed totals by sport and sometimes by year. Washington broke down the data into categories for brand deals and collective deals, but provided totals for only 2022-23 and 2023-24, with the data running through February 2024.
Oregon, Arkansas, Minnesota and Washington State omitted some or all financial information from individual NIL deals, so those records are not included in any of The Post’s analysis. The Post did not include figures provided by Florida State, because the school does not require athletes to disclose deals.
For sport-specific analysis, The Post grouped together cross-country and track and field deals. A small number of payments indicated an athlete was on the roster for multiple sports, and those were placed in their own category. Some deals, often in track and field or swimming and diving, did not list gender; those were classified as payments to athletes with an unknown gender.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 