Public intelligence
PublicRosters, official statistics, partnership announcements and regulation. Assembled from material anyone could find, organised so it can be read together. Every claim carries a source name, a date and a link.
NIL market intelligence
Everyone can tell you who an athlete compares to.
Nobody tells you what those athletes were paid.
The NIL market prices itself on instinct and rumour because the information needed to do better is scattered across recruiting databases, social platforms, fifty legislatures and a few thousand private agreements.
Varsity Valuations connects it. Athlete performance, audience, comparable pools that move weekly, and verified transactions from the market itself.
Athletes
15,620
2 sports
Conferences
9
Power Four and Group of Five
Programs
128
Rosters refreshed monthly
Comparable relationships
535,000
Rebuilt as signals move
The gap
A comparable set is not an answer.
Every tool in this market can produce a list of similar athletes and a projected value derived from follower counts and school performance. That is useful for finding people. It is not useful when a number is on the table and you have to decide whether it is fair.
The question an agent, a collective or an athlete actually has is simpler and harder: what did athletes like this one get paid?
That answer exists. It sits in private agreements, and nobody has assembled it.
Against the pool
Illustrative
Offer on the table
$18,000
Pool median
$31,500
Across 9 verified deals from 6 athletes in this comparable pool. Range $18,000 to $55,000.
Comparable pools
The set an athlete is measured against, and when it moves.
Pools are built from position, conference tier, production and audience, weighted differently depending on the question. A brand deal weights audience. A revenue-share agreement weights production.
They rebuild as those signals change, so the group an athlete sits in during October is not necessarily the group from August. That movement is the moment a market changed, whether or not anyone noticed.
One layer, four readings.
The same data answers a different question depending on who is asking it.
Athletes
Where you sit on production and audience, who you actually compare to, what those athletes were paid, and your own record of every deal and deliverable you have signed.
Agents
The same across your whole roster, plus what an offer should be worth before you counter it, and a note when a client's market moves ahead of their agreement.
Collectives
Allocation benchmarked against what comparable athletes are actually paid elsewhere, and a record of what every athlete on the roster owes and delivered.
Brands
Athletes matched on the criteria that matter to the campaign, and what comparable brands paid athletes in the same pool.
Public and verified, never blended.
Verified intelligence
VerifiedWhat athletes, agencies and collectives contribute about real transactions. Anonymised before anyone sees it, with the provenance of each figure recorded. This is the half nobody else has.
Every figure on this platform states the sample it rests on. Where athletes cannot honestly be separated, they are shown as a cohort rather than given an invented order. Where a signal is missing, the result says so.
The market gets more legible when the people in it build the record.
Deals contributed are anonymised, and they become the benchmarks every participant reads.