Mizzou Athletics Faces NIL Era Head-On Amid Shifting College Sports Landscape
As the ground continues to shift beneath the feet of college athletics, the University of Missouri is trying to stay one step ahead. On Thursday, Mizzou athletic director Laird Veatch and UM System President Mun Choi addressed the Faculty Council with a financial update that quickly turned into a deep dive on one of the most pressing issues in college sports today: name, image, and likeness (NIL).
And make no mistake - the questions came fast and pointed.
Faculty members voiced real concern over how NIL is reshaping not just budgets, but the very identity of college athletics. At the heart of it all?
Uncertainty. Veatch didn’t sugarcoat it.
“We don’t have a stable environment where (the players are) committed for a certain amount of time. We don’t have collective bargaining,” he said. “It’s essentially a free market, year over year.”
That “free market” dynamic is what’s keeping athletic departments across the country on their toes. While the NCAA has imposed a cap of $20.5 million on what schools can spend directly on athletes - a move aimed at preventing an all-out arms race - there’s no such ceiling for third-party entities. That opens the door for collectives and private investors to play a major role, and that’s where things start to get murky.
The Faculty Council pressed on how private money could influence the integrity of Mizzou’s athletic programs. Choi didn’t shy away from the risks.
“With private equity you would have to imagine you’d give up some control,” he said. “We would have to weigh that very carefully before giving up control as an institution with integrity.”
That tension - between financial opportunity and institutional identity - is becoming a defining storyline in the NIL era. And it’s not just about the dollars. It’s about what those dollars mean for the relationship between student-athletes and their universities.
One major question raised: Are athletes now employees?
According to Veatch, not quite - at least not in the traditional sense. He explained that student-athletes at Mizzou are classified as 1099 contractors through Every True Tiger Brands, the university’s NIL collective.
That means they’re technically freelancers, not employees, and currently not eligible to unionize. But that status isn’t set in stone.
Ongoing lawsuits could change the game, possibly opening the door to collective bargaining in the not-so-distant future.
The conversation took a turn when a council member raised a pointed example - referencing a quarterback from a national championship contender who reportedly hadn’t attended class in years, despite still playing college football. While the player mentioned was Miami’s Carson Beck, the concern was broader: Could something like that happen at Mizzou?
Both Veatch and Choi were adamant - that’s not the case in Columbia.
“There’s no question that the model for college athletics is shifting dramatically,” Veatch said. “There’s a professionalization that’s happening.”
That last line might be the most important takeaway. College sports are no longer just about scholarships and school pride.
They’re inching - or sprinting - toward a model that looks a lot more like the pros. And while Mizzou is doing its best to navigate that shift with eyes wide open, the road ahead is anything but simple.
The Tigers, like every other program in the country, are now operating in a world where NIL, private equity, and player mobility are the new normal. The challenge?
Maintaining the core values of college athletics while adapting to a rapidly evolving landscape. And if Thursday’s meeting is any indication, Mizzou’s leadership knows just how high the stakes are.