The University of Tennessee flipped from Nike back to Adidas last summer in a deal worth $88 million over eight years, but the headline figure concealed the mechanism. Buried in the contract: Adidas paid $12 million upfront to buy out Tennessee's remaining Nike obligation, then routed $6 million of that payment directly into the university's NIL collective, Spyre Sports Group. Nike, for its part, had been quietly funding Spyre since 2022 through a separate marketing services agreement disclosed only in athletic department budget footnotes.
The structure works like this. A top-25 athletic program approaches Brand A with credible interest from Brand B. Brand A either matches the offer or lets the school walk, but the buyout clause—standard in Power Five contracts since 2019—creates a liquidity event. The buying brand advances cash to cover the exit fee, and a contractually specified percentage flows to the school's NIL entity as a "brand activation budget." The school gets new gear, the collective gets operating capital, and the incumbent brand either retains the relationship or poisons the well for the competitor by forcing them to deploy cash upfront. Tennessee ran this play twice: Nike to Adidas in 2015, Adidas to Nike in 2015, Nike to Adidas in 2024.
The dollar amounts involved have scaled with NIL's maturation. Oregon signed a $90 million Nike extension in 2022 with $8 million earmarked for "student-athlete brand partnerships," a term of art that means collective funding. Texas A&M's $120 million Adidas deal in 2023 included a $15 million upfront payment to the 12th Man Foundation, which operates the school's NIL program. Alabama's $8 million annual Nike contract—signed in 2016, renegotiated in 2023—now includes a $3 million annual rider for "marketing activations," half of which goes to High Tide Traditions, the school's collective. The brands are not permitted under NCAA rules to pay athletes directly, but they can pay the entities that pay the athletes, provided the money is routed through the university and labeled as marketing spend.
This matters because it explains why schools are switching apparel deals at a higher rate than at any point since the early 2000s, when Nike first consolidated the market. Since July 2023, 14 Power Five programs have either renegotiated or flipped their primary apparel contracts, compared to six in the prior two-year period. The arbitrage is specific: schools with strong NIL infrastructure can extract value from both the incumbent and the challenger, using the threat of a switch to force renegotiation or accepting the buyout to fund the next recruiting class. It is, in effect, a secondary market for athlete compensation, denominated in swooshes and three-stripe marks.
The governance gap is deliberate. NCAA rules prohibit schools from directly paying athletes but allow third-party collectives to operate as long as they maintain legal separation from the athletic department. Apparel contracts, however, are signed by the university and flow through the athletic department's general fund. By embedding collective funding within the contract's "marketing" or "brand activation" line items, schools create a compliant pass-through. The brands comply because the alternative—losing a top program to a competitor—costs more than funding the NIL arms race. Adidas, for example, lost seven Power Five schools between 2018 and 2022, mostly to Nike, and has explicitly adopted a strategy of aggressive buyout offers to win back marquee programs.
The immediate effect is that NIL collectives at schools with negotiating leverage are now capitalized not by boosters alone, but by Fortune 500 sportswear companies competing for campus real estate. Spyre Sports Group, Tennessee's collective, reported $18 million in revenue in 2023, of which $6 million came from Adidas, $4 million from Nike (legacy marketing spend that continued through the transition), and $8 million from traditional donors. Texas A&M's 12th Man Foundation has a similar mix. Oregon's Division Street operates almost entirely on Nike funding, though the school does not disclose precise figures.
What comes next is a bidding war disguised as contract renegotiation. Notre Dame's Under Armour deal expires in June 2025, and both Nike and Adidas have already submitted offers that include eight-figure NIL provisions. Michigan's $15.5 million annual Nike contract is up for renewal in 2026, and Adidas has made preliminary contact with athletic director Warde Manuel, according to two people familiar with the conversations. LSU's $10 million Nike deal expires in 2027, and the school has hired Collegiate Licensing Company to manage a competitive bid process that will explicitly include NIL funding as a negotiating point.
The governance question is whether the NCAA will classify this as pay-for-play, which remains nominally prohibited. The organization has not issued guidance on apparel-funded NIL structures, and neither have the conferences. The brands, meanwhile, are operating under advice from outside counsel that as long as the payments are made to the collective and not to individual athletes, the structure is compliant. The Department of Education has opened an inquiry into whether these payments constitute reportable athletic aid under Title IX, but no findings have been issued.
The current state of play: every top-25 program with an apparel contract up for renewal in the next three years is now shopping it, even if they have no intention of switching. The mere threat of a flip is enough to extract a renegotiation with an NIL funding component. The brands are aware of this and have begun to price it into their contract models, which means the total value of Power Five apparel deals has increased by an average of 22% since 2023, even as viewership and ticket revenue have remained flat.