The landscape of American college football has undergone a fundamental shift since the introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, creating what Spanish sports outlet Diario AS describes as a “nueva normalidad” in how athletes approach the NFL Draft. No longer is it automatic for standout college players to declare for the draft after their sophomore or junior seasons. Instead, the financial incentives built into NIL agreements are encouraging many top talents to remain in school longer, using their collegiate platform to maximize both athletic development and earning potential before turning professional.
This new reality was highlighted in a recent Diario AS report examining how NIL has altered decision-making for college athletes across major sports, including football. The report noted that the ability to earn significant income while still enrolled has made staying in college “very lucrative,” presenting athletes with a three-part choice: remain in school to improve and aim for a higher draft round, enter the draft immediately, or pursue other paths. The report emphasized that while a few elite prospects in each class may secure long-term, lucrative NFL careers, the majority face uncertain professional trajectories, making the college route increasingly appealing for financial stability and growth.
The shift is particularly evident in the case of high-profile quarterbacks who have leveraged NIL deals to build substantial personal brands. One prominent example is Fernando Mendoza, the former Indiana University quarterback who won the Heisman Trophy in 2025. According to Diario AS, Mendoza’s breakout season led the Hoosiers to a 13-0 record, a Big Ten Championship, and a historic playoff seed. Despite not receiving a traditional salary from the university, his income came entirely from NIL partnerships and endorsements. Multiple NIL tracking services estimated his overall value for the 2025-26 season at approximately $2.6 million, placing him among the top five highest-valued college football players in terms of NIL earnings during that period.
While Mendoza’s NIL valuation reached the millions, reports indicated his total net worth was estimated between $800,000 and $1.5 million by analysts cited in Yahoo coverage referenced by Diario AS. This discrepancy between gross NIL value and net worth reflects the realities of taxes, agent fees, marketing costs, and other expenses that reduce take-home earnings—details often overlooked in initial NIL valuations but critical to understanding the actual financial picture for student-athletes.
The trend extends beyond individual stars. As noted in the Diario AS piece, the NIL era has changed how talent flows to professional leagues like the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS. Where it was once common for athletes to enter drafts after one or two college seasons, the current environment invites more careful consideration. Athletes and their advisors now weigh not only athletic readiness but also the opportunity to compound value through additional seasons of exposure, performance improvement, and off-field branding.
This strategic delay in turning professional carries implications for NFL draft projections and team planning. Franchises must now evaluate prospects who may have more college game tape but less immediate pro readiness, or vice versa. The extended college tenure allowed by NIL opportunities means some players enter the draft with more refined skills and leadership experience, while others may benefit from additional physical maturation. Conversely, teams lose some predictability in projecting how a player will adapt to the NFL’s faster pace and complex schemes when their college careers are prolonged.
The broader impact of NIL on college athletics continues to evolve. While the Diario AS report focused on the decision to stay or go pro, it also touched on the origins of NIL rights, describing them as the result of years of litigation between athletes and educational institutions that had long compensated schools billions while restricting athlete earnings to scholarships alone. Court rulings favoring athletes led to legislative changes that now permit compensation based on name, image, and likeness—a shift that has redefined the amateurism model in U.S. College sports.
For global audiences following American sports, understanding NIL’s influence is key to interpreting draft declarations, transfer portal movements, and long-term athlete career strategies. The decision to remain in college is no longer solely about athletic development or academic completion; it is increasingly a financial calculation. As one athlete quoted in the Diario AS piece reflected, echoing the lyrical question from The Clash’s “Should I Stay or Should I Go,” the modern college star must now ask whether the benefits of another season in school—both on the field and in their bank account—outweigh the risks and uncertainties of early entry into professional sports.
The next confirmed checkpoint in this ongoing narrative will be the 2026 NFL Draft, where the effects of NIL-driven decisions will be visible in the timing and selection of prospects who chose to leverage another year of collegiate eligibility. As the draft approaches, analysts will monitor how many first-round talents elected to stay in school, how their draft stock evolved, and whether the “nueva normalidad” continues to reshape the path from college stardom to professional football.
What do you reckon about how NIL is changing the way college athletes approach their futures? Share your perspective in the comments below, and feel free to pass this along to others following the evolving dynamics of American sports.
