Originally published in 2017, The Miseducation of the Student-Athlete is a groundbreaking analysis of how to fix college sports in an era transformed by Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights. In the following preface for the updated edition of the book, Wharton emeritus professor Kenneth L. Shropshire and co-author Collin D. Williams, Jr. examine the post-2021 revolution in collegiate athletics and the fundamental challenge of balancing athletics with meaningful education.
When we first wrote The Miseducation of the Student Athlete, which published in 2017, we were driven by a single, urgent question: What happens to student-athletes after the final whistle?
At the time, amateurism’s vice grip on college sport made the idea of signing endorsements while attending classes seem like a far-off fantasy. What we now call NIL (name, image, and likeness) deals were then “improper benefits” and regarded among the highest of NCAA infractions. For paying student-athletes, the governing body wielded its harshest penalties—revoking scholarships, suspending and firing coaches, vacating existing wins and championships, and even enforcing the “death” penalty, or banning entire programs from competition for a season or more.
Thankfully, that world no longer exists.
Less than a decade later, college sports has undergone a seismic transformation—one that even the most forward-thinking advocates, including us, had not fully imagined.
First, NCAA vs. Alston (2021) ruled unanimously against the NCAA’s limits on education-related benefits, finally allowing student-athletes to profit from their own name, image, and likeness. This facilitated the explosive rise of lucrative NIL deals, transfer portals, and donor-backed collectives.
With the House v. NCAA (2025) ruling came a watershed moment. The $2.8B settlement to compensate current and former student-athletes confirmed what they had always known: They were essential to a multibillion-dollar enterprise yet unjustly excluded from its profits. Now, Division I (DI) schools are permitted to share up to $20.5 million annually with their athletes.
NCAA vs. Alston (2021) legalized formerly improper benefits from outside sources, and House vs. NCAA (2025) legalized direct internal funding. Together, the rules of the college sport were rewritten.
Amateurism is dead.
But amid all this change, one thing has remained stubbornly overlooked: education.
Amateurism is dead.
Despite spanning 76 pages, the opinion outlining the House ruling offers little reflection on the quality of student-athlete’s educational experiences or how well institutions prepare them for life beyond sport. As financial barriers break down, the deeper question persists: Are athletes being equipped to succeed off the field, and not just on it?
[Our book was] written in 2017, prior to these changes in compensation. Even then we argued college sport had lost its balance and sought to call attention to the commercial machine overshadowing academic missions. Today, in this new NIL era, that call is even more urgent. It is not just about access to revenue, but about access to a meaningful, sustainable future.
We’ve seen numerous headlines about athletes like Livvy Dunne, Shedeur Sanders, and others earning millions in endorsements. But behind the headlines are thousands more with modest NIL returns, limited guidance, and little support. Who is helping them navigate contracts, manage sudden wealth (or the lack thereof), and build skills for careers that may not include playing professional sports?
The business of college sports has grown into a $15-20+ billion behemoth. Media rights, realignment deals, and collective funding have supercharged competition. Athletes can now move freely between schools, with NIL deals in tow, creating a new bidding ecosystem. What was once an extracurricular is now a marketplace.
To be clear, we are fans of this newfound equity.
And yet, in too many locker rooms and lecture halls, the educational experience remains transactional—carefully scheduled around practices, travel, and eligibility requirements. Student-athletes are still too often nudged toward courses of convenience rather than courses of curiosity. Some graduate, yes, but do they grow?
Student-athletes are still too often nudged toward courses of convenience rather than courses of curiosity.
In a way, we’ve inched closer to the Olympic model we once envisioned: athletes earning income while maintaining eligibility. But the real question is whether this new era will usher in not just equity, but empowerment. Not just access to dollars, but access to development.
Beyond high-profile reforms, this moment offers an opening to rethink how resources are allocated across college athletics, particularly toward sports that serve more students, but receive less attention and funding. Non-revenue and non-varsity programs often operate on the margins, despite their potential to expand access and deepen impact.
Two points deserve emphasis. First, many athletes in these programs are tuition-paying students, meaning their participation can contribute positively to institutional budgets rather than drain them. Second, and consistent with our broader argument, participation in college athletics yields benefits that extend far beyond competition. Research shows 94% of women in C-suite roles played sports, and over half did so at the collegiate level.[i] These experiences foster traits like resilience, leadership, and self-discipline that power professional success.
Moreover, longitudinal research indicates that former college athletes are more likely than their non-athlete peers to complete college, report higher life satisfaction, and participate in civic and professional leadership roles.[ii] Investing in broader access to college sports is not merely a nod to tradition; it is a strategic decision that supports educational attainment, diversity in leadership pipelines, and the long-term well-being of students and society.
This new preface isn’t a correction. It’s a reaffirmation. The rules have changed. The stakes have risen. Different language (like NIL, collectives, portals) has entered the mainstream. But our mission remains the same: to advocate for student-athletes’ holistic development, spotlight the gaps that persist, and push for systems that don’t just reward athletic performance, but nurture career potential.
Excerpted from The Miseducation of the Student-Athlete, with a New Preface by the Authors: How to Fix College Sports. Copyright © 2026 by Kenneth L. Shropshire and Collin D. Williams, Jr. Reprinted by permission of University of Pennsylvania Press.
