# data[].attributes.body
Create a table of contents for the components of your argument, to include:

1. Literature Review

2. Patchwork Regulations and Competitive Imbalance

3. Financial and Competitive Impact

4. Alternate Perspective

5. Refutation

6. Conclusion

7. References

# data[].attributes.body
My research highlighted significant scholarly discussions regarding NIL policies and conference realignment. Ehrlich et al. (2023) emphasized NIL as a shift toward a gig economy, creating disparities. LaCasto (2024) argued urgently for federal legislation to prevent competitive inequity. Together, these sources underscore the broader trend of structural inequality exacerbated by NIL deregulation. Scholarly dialogue consistently emphasizes the need for clear governance structures to mitigate these inequities, advocating for policy standardization to avoid escalating imbalance and preserve the fundamental fairness traditionally associated with collegiate athletics.

# data[].attributes.headline
2. Patchwork Regulations and Competitive Imbalance 

# data[].attributes.subject
2. Patchwork Regulations and Competitive Imbalance 

# data[].attributes.body
The lack of uniform NIL regulation post-2021 has intensified competitive imbalances. Salaga et al. (2023) highlight how varied state regulations advantage institutions in wealthier regions, directly affecting recruitment and retention of talent at schools like WSU. This common thread among the literature clearly demonstrates the disparities emerging from inconsistent governance. This regulatory fragmentation particularly disadvantages institutions without significant donor bases or corporate partnerships, further marginalizing smaller programs in less affluent regions, ultimately undermining the collegiate model's inclusivity and fairness.

# data[].attributes.body
Conference realignment compounds these imbalances, leading to significant financial losses and competitive disadvantages for smaller institutions. Matthews and Pelkowski (2024) detail how these fiscal impacts diminish team competitiveness, athlete recruitment, and fan support, further isolating schools already disadvantaged by uneven NIL opportunities. The realignment creates long-term instability, erodes school traditions, and severely weakens institutional identity, compounding challenges faced by smaller schools striving to remain competitive amidst financial constraints and loss of critical revenue streams.

# data[].attributes.body
While acknowledging these concerns, Posivak (2023) and Stephenson (2021) provide alternative views emphasizing athlete empowerment and psychological benefits from NIL policies. However, these analyses tend to overlook the broader systemic inequalities highlighted by Ehrlich et al. (2023) and Salaga et al. (2023). Such optimistic perspectives, although valid regarding athlete autonomy, fail to sufficiently address the competitive, financial, and institutional harms disproportionately impacting smaller programs, thus oversimplifying the complex realities faced by less advantaged schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Considering alternative perspectives, this project argues for a balanced approach. Without federal regulation and equitable governance, benefits of NIL policies disproportionately favor privileged institutions, deepening existing inequities. My perspective, informed by scholarly conversations, adds emphasis to the critical need for a unified regulatory framework to ensure fairness. Effective governance would bridge these divides by offering consistent protections and opportunities across all collegiate programs, fostering a more equitable environment that genuinely benefits student-athletes and institutions alike.

# data[].attributes.body
The project underscores that unregulated NIL and chaotic conference realignment disproportionately harm smaller institutions like WSU. Scholarly consensus and my analysis call for immediate action through federal NIL regulations and reformed NCAA governance. Addressing these systemic inequities is essential for maintaining collegiate athletics as a fair and inclusive domain. Ensuring sustainable reform is vital not just for smaller institutions, but for the overall health of collegiate athletics, protecting the integrity, competitive diversity, and long-term viability that have historically defined and enriched the collegiate sports landscape.

# data[].attributes.body
Ehrlich, S. C., Sabin, J., & Ternes, N. C. (2023). With name, image, and likeness, college sports enters the gig economy. Journal of Sport Management, 37(5), 319–332.

LaCasto, O. (2024). NIL madness: The need for federal legislation to govern student-athlete monetization of name, image, and likeness. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 57(4), 1049–1107.

Matthews, A. L., & Pelkowski, J. (2024). How transfer behavior impacts consumer perceptions and intentions toward college athletes who pursue name, image, and/or likeness activities. Journal of Sport Management, 38(5), 365–376.

Posivak, B. (2023). Game changers: Rewriting the playbook, a sports and entertainment law symposium. Akron Law Review, 56(3), 447–454.

Salaga, S., Brison, N., Cooper, J., Rascher, D., & Schwarz, A. (2023). Special issue introduction: Name, image, and likeness and the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Journal of Sport Management, 37(5), 305–306.

Stephenson, L. (2021). More money, more problems? A look into the psychological ramifications of name, image, and likeness deals in college athletics. Law & Psychology Review, 46, 273–289.