For decades, college athletes have been barred from using their name, image, and likeness (NIL) to earn money through the sort of lucrative endorsement deals that professional athletes commonly sign. The ban by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which sets the rules for college sports, was intended to reflect students' official status as amateurs and keep financial pressure and unfair competition out of intercollegiate play. But college sports is big business. In 2019, the NCAA reported that revenue from athletics totaled $18.9 billion. Meanwhile, in addition to barring endorsement deals, NCAA rules also stipulate that college athletes cannot be paid beyond "the full cost of attendance." Both of those limits have come under considerable pressure in recent years, resulting in two major changes in 2022. First, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that lifted some limits on financial incentives colleges can offer their athletes. Student-athletes still cannot receive salaries and the ruling preserved the right of the NCAA to set and enforce the rules for these arrangements. Then the NCAA temporarily lifted its longstanding ban on NIL endorsement deals. The demands on the players and the enormous profits have long raised questions of fairness, both from civil-rights and free-market perspectives. So, the questions raised are: If we keep removing pieces of the NCAA's authority, will a once-solid base of college sports suddenly crumble? Or will the base for revenue-generating sports become even stronger? How will that affect other sports, other students, and entire campuses? This fast-moving period of change provides each school the opportunity to step back and decide which role it wants to play in the uniquely American phenomenon of college sports.