Female athletes dominate the social media followings of college basketball players: “Eight of the 10 most-followed NCAA Elite 8 basketball players are women”

U Conn freshman Paige Bueckers

… led by freshman phenom Paige Bueckers of UConn

Can female athletes earn more than men? Is this a changing phenomenon based upon the emergence of social media?

According to a sports marketing platform for athletes, the members of the NCAA women’s Elite Eight basketball finalists are leading the men in a significant way. 

On television, the men’s tournament received exponentially more coverage than does the women’s tournament. However, the money that the young athletes could earn based upon these numbers favors women. 

Seriously. 

Reporting from Opendorse

The research from the platform “Opendorse” illustrates that women are followed more often than men on social media. That seems counter-intuitive, and this was based on a small model — the eight teams in the men’s and women’s Elite Eight this year.

However, it is interesting based on the Name, Image, and Likeness [NIL] rights,

Why it matters: If athletes had full control of their NIL rights, the top women's basketball players in this year's Elite Eight would have greater earning power than the top men.

By the numbers: Among the men's and women's Elite Eight teams, eight of the 10 most-followed players — and 10 of the top 20 — are women.

• Listed below are the combined Twitter and Instagram follower counts for the 20 most-followed players, plus their estimated annual earnings, provided to Axios by athlete marketing platform Opendorse.

• Opendorse's estimates weigh multiple factors, including engagement rate, market size (e.g. UCLA > Gonzaga) and overall sponsorship and athletic department revenue by school (e.g. Louisville > UConn).

Top 20:

1. 🚺 Paige Bueckers, UConn: ~730k ($382k)
2. 🚺 Hailey Van Lith, Louisville: 696k ($965k)
3. 🚹 Jalen Suggs, Gonzaga: 325k ($495k)
4. 🚺 Jaden Owens, Baylor: 295k ($310k)
5. 🚺 Zia Cooke, South Carolina: 206k ($178k)
6. 🚺 Cameron Brink, Stanford: 91k ($47k)
7. 🚹 Adrian Nunez, Michigan: 83k ($70k)
8. 🚺 Anna Wilson, Stanford: 80k ($41k)
9. 🚺 Olivia Nelson-Ododa, UConn: 77k ($30k)
10. 🚺 Brea Beal, South Carolina: 74k ($69k)
11. 🚹 Quentin Grimes, Houston: 66k ($67k)
12. 🚺 Destanni Henderson, South Carolina: 65k ($81k)
13. 🚹 Evan Mobley, USC: 62k ($46k)
14. 🚹 Johnny Juzang, UCLA: 55k ($53k)
15. 🚹 Tyger Campbell, UCLA: 54k ($59k)
16. 🚹 Moses Moody, Arkansas: 50k ($72k)
17. 🚹 Drew Timme, Gonzaga: 49k ($40k)
18. 🚹 Hunter Dickinson, Michigan: 49k ($33k)
19. 🚹 Jaylen Clark, UCLA: 49k ($38k)
20. 🚺 Caitlin Clark, Iowa: 42k ($11k)

Kendall Baker, “Eight of the ten most-followed NCAA Elite 8 

basketball players are women,” Axios, March 29, 2021

What is the NIL?

The NIL is a policy now being made into law in many states that allow college athletes to make money on their name, image, and likeness, instead of simply allowing the schools to do so. 

What this might do to amateur status is something that has not been determined. However, last year, the NCAA updates its rules about this, 

The NCAA on Wednesday announced it has accepted recommendations on how best to update its rules on name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation.

The announcement has been expected for some time, even as individual states passed their own legislation allowing for NCAA student-athletes to profit off their NIL. That said, the organization only accepted the recommendations from a working group — headed by Big East commissioner Val Ackerman and Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith — on how to implement these updates.

The final rules, which have yet to be defined and were left nebulous in Wednesday’s announcement, are not expected to go into effect in the 2020-21 academic career.

Those are just a few of the hurdles remaining before the NCAA will finally allow its student-athletes to profit off their NIL. 

Zac Al-Khateeb, “NCAA NIL rules, explained,” USA Today, April 30, 2020

So, in reality, athletes cannot yet profit off of this, but this is a projection of what some current athletes could earn if it ever becomes reality. 

What is “Opendorse”

It identifies itself as “Technology fo support athlete marketing at every level,” and it brags that more then 30,000 athletes use it “to understand, build, and monetize their brand.”

Ironically, of the endorsement videos listed, only two are of female athletes, but that could change if college athletes are allowed to monetize their brand. 

However, if athletes earn money, they would no longer be considered amateurs, although that word is used improperly by many, including the U.S. Olympic Committee. [I have never watched the olympics after they permitted professional basketball players to participate. Poor Jim Thorpe.]

Conclusion

This will be interesting over the next few years. Can college give athletes scholarships if they are no longer amateurs? 

Why not?

The schools are making big bucks off the NIL of these athletes and have been for years.