College football season is upon us, and hope springs eternal for fans across the country. As I eagerly await seeing how my Notre Dame Fighting Irish fare in perhaps their most anticipated season of my lifetime, I’m watching how the market dynamics unfold. Having recently advising brands on both jersey patch and field logo partnerships, there are two key sports business storylines that I’ll be watching closely as we march towards the CFP at the end of the season (aside from what happens with the Protect College Sports Act).
Both have the potential to significantly impact fans, athletic departments, brands, and athletes alike.
Where Is the College Jersey Patch Market Moving?
Following the NCAA’s approval in January, college athletic departments can directly monetize jersey-patch inventory this season, creating a significant new revenue opportunity at a time when schools are facing growing financial pressure.
The timing could not be more significant. With the House settlement ushering in a new era of direct revenue sharing with student-athletes, athletic departments are under increasing pressure to identify new sources of revenue. Jersey patches represent one of the most visible and scalable assets available to schools, with the potential to generate meaningful incremental revenue while giving brands a new way to drive impact by aligning with some of the most valuable properties in college sports.
In late July, Ohio State and Notre Dame entered the market with jersey patch deals reportedly approaching $20 million annually for each school. Since then, it has been relatively quiet in the world of college jersey patch partnerships.
One would think that, with more than 40 Power Four schools yet to announce deals, we would be seeing a flurry of activity as we approach the start of the college football season.
My read on the situation? There were likely a number of deals nearing the finish line when Notre Dame and Ohio State reset the market. Now, stakeholders across campuses are holding out for annual values materially higher than they had previously targeted.
In an environment where revenue is increasingly paramount to the success of collegiate athletic departments, that could be a dangerous game to play. The value of a jersey patch is inherently tied to exposure, and every game that passes without a partner represents inventory that can never be recaptured.
The bigger question is whether the market can actually support the expectations being set by early deals. Ohio State and Notre Dame may have established a new ceiling for the category, but that does not necessarily mean every school can command the same economics. For rights-holders, holding out for a higher valuation creates the risk of leaving revenue on the table; for brands, paying a premium raises the bar for the business impact the partnership must ultimately deliver.
The market will need to find the balance between what schools believe the inventory is worth and what brands believe it can deliver. For brands and rights-holders alike, the time to make a deal is now.
My best guess is that we see a flurry of deals announced throughout September as schools and brands come to terms with where the jersey patch market will settle.
Will Brands Continue to Bet Big on Collegiate Talent in National Campaigns?
In the NIL era, endorsing college athletes has become big business and can drive meaningful impact for brands. But investing significant dollars in an athlete with an unproven track record is fundamentally different from investing in an established professional like Patrick Mahomes, whose staying power has already been demonstrated.
In 2021, Dr Pepper tapped Clemson quarterback DJ Uiagalelei to be the face of its Fansville campaign in a deal rumored to be worth more than $1 million. At the time, the potential Heisman contender looked like a logical bet. But Uiagalelei and Clemson struggled, losing three of their first seven games. His performance quickly became fodder for criticism not only of Uiagalelei, but also of Dr Pepper’s decision to put him at the center of a national campaign.
Last season, RAM Trucks faced a similar challenge with its “Epic Launch” campaign featuring Penn State quarterback Drew Allar and actor Terry Crews. After a 3-3 start, Penn State’s season quickly unraveled, with Allar sidelined for the remainder of the season with a broken ankle and head coach James Franklin fired just one day later. The broader struggles surrounding Penn State and Allar generated negative discourse online, ultimately prompting RAM to recut the creative and remove Allar from the campaign for the remainder of the college football season.
These examples highlight a unique challenge with NIL. When a college athlete becomes the face of a national campaign, a brand is betting not only on the athlete’s current popularity, but also on what happens to that athlete over the course of the season. Performance, health, team success, visibility, and reputation can all change quickly and largely sit outside the brand’s control.
None of this means brands should avoid college athletes. Quite the contrary. College athletes can move the needle, particularly for regional brands that can leverage recognizable talent at reasonable rates to create meaningful impact in the communities that matter most.
For national brands, the business case may call for a more measured approach to NIL. If college athletes are central to the strategy, leveraging more than one can help mitigate the risk associated with a single individual. If talent is essential to the campaign, brands could instead consider established personalities with credibility and recognition within the college sports ecosystem. And in some cases, the smartest approach may be to forgo talent altogether and build around the unique, passionate fandom that makes college sports so powerful. The key for national brands is determining when talent adds value to a campaign and when the power of college sports itself is enough.
I’ll be watching to see whether national brands continue making these kinds of short-term bets on college football stars or whether the lessons of the past few years lead marketers to build more flexibility into how they activate NIL.
Chris Castellan
Vice President, Consulting
rEvolution
