If you’re a parent, grandparent, guardian or close family member of a college or high school athlete in Texas, you have felt the shift.
NIL. Revenue sharing. Transfer portal. Contracts. Six-figure headlines. Social media announcements.
College athletics did not just change. It accelerated.
Having watched this transformation both as a longtime college athletics administrator and as a recent college parent, I am convinced of something simple: the confusion families feel is not driven by change alone. It stems from a lack of clear, structured education for the people most responsible for guiding these young athletes.
Parents have always been central to college decisions. They evaluate academic fit, competitive opportunity and long-term stability. They protect eligibility. They think beyond the next season.
What was once a relatively straightforward recruiting conversation is now layered with name, image and likeness rules, evolving revenue-sharing models and unrestricted transfer mobility. Many call it the “Wild West.” But none of these developments reduce the role of families. If anything, they increase it.
Most Texas parents are not trying to exploit the system. They are trying to help their child choose wisely in an environment that feels more complicated than ever. Yet too often, families are treated as observers rather than stakeholders.
They are expected to interpret contracts, weigh financial implications and absorb the consequences of rushed decisions, while NIL and revenue-sharing discussions focus primarily on institutions and athletes.
Texas is not just another state in this debate. High school athletics here are woven into community identity. On Friday nights, from 6A programs in fast-growing metro districts to small-town stadiums across West Texas, entire communities gather under the lights. Recruiting conversations often begin well before senior year. The University Interscholastic League continues to enforce eligibility standards designed to keep athletics connected to education.
National headlines rarely explain how college NIL policies differ from Texas high school rules. They rarely clarify that turning 18 does not automatically unlock endorsement freedom for high school athletes. Compensation tied to performance remains prohibited. Recruiting inducements remain off limits. Eligibility standards still govern participation.
These distinctions are not technicalities. They carry real consequences for families who misunderstand them.
I’ve spoken with Texas parents who assume that because an athlete in another state announced a lucrative NIL deal online, similar opportunities must exist here. That assumption alone can create unnecessary pressure and risky decision-making.
Revenue sharing has added another layer. Some colleges are now distributing defined revenues directly to student-athletes under emerging models. But those arrangements are institutional, variable and far from uniform. They are not recruiting guarantees.
When outlier deals dominate headlines, perspective disappears. The vast majority of student-athletes, even at the Division I level, will not receive transformational compensation. Their success will still depend on development, coaching stability, academic alignment and fit.
What has changed is the speed of information and the expectation that families process it without structured guidance.
Problems rarely begin with a signed contract. They begin with implication. “This could turn into something later.” “Other schools are doing it.” “We will finalize the structure after commitment.”
Vagueness creates urgency. Urgency creates pressure. Pressure produces rushed decisions that affect entire households.
If Texas is serious about protecting student-athletes, it must also prioritize educating their families. Parent education in this era is not optional; it is part of responsible governance.
Legislators, governance bodies, school associations and parent organizations should collaborate to provide clear, standardized explanations of how college NIL and revenue sharing actually work. Institutions should offer transparent communication about revenue-sharing realities and financial literacy basics, including tax implications. State policymakers should ensure that statutory changes are accompanied by practical guidance for families, not just compliance language for institutions.
This is not an argument against NIL or revenue sharing. Change was inevitable. Confusion is not.
Texas families deserve accurate information delivered before recruiting pressure peaks. They deserve transparency from institutions. They deserve clarity about the difference between possibility and promise.
Most of all, they deserve recognition as essential stakeholders in a system that increasingly affects their homes as much as their athletes.
Texas has long produced exceptional student-athletes. That tradition was built on preparation, discipline and family support.
NIL and revenue sharing are now part of the environment. They should not displace the families who continue to anchor it.
Texas families do not need hype. They need clarity. And Texas leaders should make that clarity a priority.