NIL for the Women

I had to look twice. Here was Caitlin Clark, probably the best women's college basketball player, hawking for State Farm Insurance.

It was all contrived, with Clark wearing her Iowa uniform and discussing State Farm's advantages. But no worse than what any other man would have done. With that, though, a new frontier has emerged.

Professional women have been displayed on other TV ads; Sue Bird, former pro basketball player, comes to mind. Clark, though, is still in college. What she did was, until about a year ago, unthinkable.

We have already come to expect it from collegiate men: the old restrictions have fallen away with court rulings that college athletes, who earn incredible income for their sports programs, especially in football and basketball, can reap some cash for themselves through their names, images and likeness (NIL, it's called: a new hip acronym). I wonder how much State Farm paid her, and I wonder if her agent--no doubt she has one--managed to procure what a man would have.

It's a new form of objectification, one based on earning one's way. The sports women aren't being displayed for their looks. They're being displayed because of their skills and success at a cultural norm that millions of girls now seek and have call to believe they can now achieve: to fill up a stadium so that people can watch them shoot 3-pointers. That's true in Iowa; in South Carolina; in Connecticut; in Tennessee; in South Bend, Indiana, where Notre Dame hangs out. Success and a decent amount of prestige in those venues have been well established for a while, but showing off the teams' stars haven't. 

Having varsity women's basketball is rightfully called "equality" next to that of men's, but the glow from having had that success never happened. Not until now.

What should have caught more people's attention is the forging of new territory for women to show their dominance: volleyball. In Nebraska, for example, 92,000 people went to watch the Cornhusker women--I'm not saying "Lady Cornhuskers," which I'm not even sure they might be called; it suggests they have to do it in skirts and courtesy, which they sure don't--compete not long ago. There are men's collegiate volleyball teams, too, of course, but they don't get nearly the attention that the women do.

I don't watch any Omaha television, so I have no idea whether Nebraska's women stars have been featured on any local ads. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they have.

Wait and see. Caitlin Clark will be touted as a pioneer. The collegiate woman as advertiser is upon us. It was suggested by some commentators the other day, in fact, that maybe Clark should seek another year of college eligibility, because what she will earn as a collegiate standout in terms of NIL will be miles ahead of what she'll get paid once she joins the WNBA, in which she will surely play and have a good career but for which crowds have never equalled that of their male counterparts.

We have come full circle. We are encouraging the women stars to stay in school and shatter whatever faćade of amateurism that may have remained, to get their money upfront and not worry about later consequences. For the men, it's just the opposite; the NBA and NFL need them now, at the ages of 18 or 19, to become absorbed by the glitter and, for some, glamour so they can light up scoreboards. For the men, it's one-and-done. If they go back and graduate, good for them. No assurance they will.

For the women, there is nothing dignified in such a decision either. It's what the market bears. It's cynical but with added advantages: They get to stick around and graduate. For women, win-win. For men, win-maybe lose. Fair enough now?

Both genders get to take advantage of the portal, though. They get to jump around to whatever other colleges look attractive. Though I have no clue about this for sure, I would guess that "attractiveness" won't mean better professors. Think of this: College as a seaport, a gateway to sojourns. Four in four years, possibly. Stability? Never mind. Next!

But if the men get to take advantage of this momentary frivolousness, the women should, too. The most visible collegians will, across the board, put forth the idea that college is a mere means to an end, not training in thinking but training in playing for as long as one can, putting the challenges of real life on hold. Good for the ones who can fit through those eyeholes in the needle, who can be members of that elite. 

The rest will have to reap the whirlwind of dysfunctional educational processes. A certain major at Kansas State is not the same one at Kentucky; there are different courses, different emphases. A student drifting from place to place can get lost within it. A college is not a college is not a college. No sense of belonging.

They're serving a purpose, though. They're still helping big universities rake in millions to help a program sustain itself. They'll still be jettisoned aside, used property albeit with more cash in their pockets, when they're through. Yes, this should happen to women as well as men. Maybe people's eyes will open faster. Maybe they'll see that what we're doing to gifted athletes of both genders has a descending, not ascending, value.

Be well, Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark