Brought to you by the Every Dollar app.

Start budgeting for free today.

All right, here's the question from Nathan.

What is your opinion on the recent changes allowing college athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness for sports fans?

You know this as NIL for non-sports fans when you hear that.

We'll explain that in a second.

Do you believe this is a positive development for college

athletics, providing athletes and with more opportunities, or do you have concerns about potential

implications for the integrity of collegiate sports? Well, let me address that first. The irony is

that NIL has actually probably brought more integrity to collegiate sports, because now it's

removed all of the edges and all the

cheating that's involved with recruiting, which would have been always cash to families or cash to

athletes. And since the adoption of NIL, where college athletes can be paid for their name,

image, and likeness. It was an adoption. It was a court mandated. Yeah, but I'm just saying.

Yeah, but it said they had to. That's right. And so now that is the law of the land. So what that has done is

really removed a lot of the cheating and the backroom deals where you saw boosters causing a lot of

problems. On the other issue, what is my opinion of it? I'm not a fan of it. I certainly understood

that there was a case to be made that colleges and their athletic departments were profiting mightily

from these athletes, but what has happened is I think it swung too far the other way, and that with

the transfer rules has now made it free agency. And so college sports mirrors professional

sports, but in fact it's even crazier. It's the Wild Wild West. There are no contracts. An NBA or an

NFL free agent is under contract for X amount of time. The team and the athlete and the agent

...