Coaches Sound Alarm Over 'Street Agents' Exploiting College Athletes in NIL Deals

As Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities have reshaped college sports, a new concern is emerging: coaches and observers warn that 'street agents'—unregulated middlemen—are increasingly exploiting athletes navigating NIL deals. The call for greater oversight comes as the industry struggles to balance athlete empowerment with safeguarding against predatory practices.

According to reports, coaches across major conferences have voiced alarm at the proliferation of street agents acting outside the purview of schools or official NIL collectives. These individuals often approach young athletes—many of whom are new to the complexities of endorsement contracts—with promises of lucrative deals, but can leave them vulnerable to unfair terms and hidden fees.

• Many coaches believe these middlemen are capitalizing on gaps in regulation.
• Some athletes have been pressured into signing binding agreements without full understanding of their long-term impacts.
• Observers note that the absence of standardized rules has opened the door for outside actors to exploit inexperienced players.

The issue has rapidly gained attention as the NIL marketplace expands. With millions of dollars flowing into college sports, the stakes are higher than ever. Coaches argue that the lack of oversight around street agents could undermine both the integrity of college athletics and the welfare of student athletes.

Efforts to address the problem are underway, with some advocating for federal legislation or NCAA intervention to regulate who can broker NIL deals. The goal, according to coaches, is to ensure that athletes are protected from predatory contracts and receive transparent guidance on their financial opportunities.

Observers stress the importance of education for athletes, recommending that schools provide resources to help players understand the legal and financial implications of NIL agreements. As the NIL landscape continues to evolve, the debate over how best to protect student athletes from exploitation by street agents remains central to the conversation about the future of college sports.