Since Kenneth Shropshire and Collin Williams C10 GR15 first published The Miseducation of the Student-Athlete in 2017, the college sports landscape has shifted dramatically. To address this, Shropshire, the David W. Hauck Professor Emeritus of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, and Williams have written a new preface to the book’s original groundbreaking analysis of how to fix college sports that examines the post-2021 revolution in collegiate athletics.
This timely update provides essential context for understanding college sports in an era transformed by Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, transfer portal movement, and revenue-sharing proposals. While student-athletes can now profit from their personal brands — with some earning more than $4 million annually — the fundamental challenge remains: how to balance athletics with meaningful education. Penn Press spoke with Shropshire about the timing for revisiting the topic, challenges for the Ivy League, and the conversations he hopes the book will inspire for new readers and those familiar with the original work.
Penn Press: What made this the right moment to write a new preface to The Miseducation of the Student-Athlete?
Kenneth Shropshire: When my coauthor, Collin Williams [C10 GR15], and I wrote the book in 2017, the big issue was whether college athletes should be compensated at all. That was the philosophical battleground. Now, we’re in a completely different era. The debate isn’t if athletes should be paid — it’s how. The emergence of NIL, the development of collectives, and the serious discussion of revenue-sharing models have transformed the landscape. It felt like the right time to revisit the book, because the context has shifted so dramatically, even if some of the core concerns remain the same.
PP: When you revisit the original edition, what feels most revelatory? And what feels the most changed?
KS: What feels prophetic is the idea that the economic structure of college sports couldn’t remain frozen forever. There was simply too much money flowing through the system. It was inevitable that athletes would claim a greater share of that value.
What’s changed most is scale. Philosophically, my position hasn’t shifted much. But the magnitude of payments has increased significantly. We’ve gone from debating modest stipends to seeing seven-figure NIL deals. That’s a major evolution.
PP: How has the rise of NIL reshaped the system?
KS: NIL moved quickly. Once the rules changed, athletic departments adapted almost immediately. Some schools hired general managers to oversee NIL funds. Collectives were formed to support athletes. Entire ecosystems developed around navigating these new opportunities.
What’s fascinating is how entrepreneurial the response has been. I recently worked with an entrepreneur who began a consulting agency that advised athletic departments on how to operate within the rules while maximizing opportunities. It all shows how quickly institutions can innovate when incentives change.
PP: From a business perspective, what is misunderstood about college athletics?
KS: I think there’s still a tendency to underestimate how much this is a market. Athletes respond to incentives. Schools respond to competitive pressures. Conferences are increasingly setting the tone, and the NCAA’s influence has diminished.
For business-minded readers, it’s important to recognize that markets eventually stabilize. Right now, we’re in a period of rapid change, especially in regard to the transfer portal and compensation structures. But over time, you’ll see better contracts, clearer retention incentives, and more predictability in the market.
PP: Has commercialization strengthened the student-athlete system? Or complicated it?
KS: It has complicated the mission, certainly. But commercialization was always present. What’s different now is transparency. The financial value of college sports is widely acknowledged. Public perception has changed dramatically since the 1990s. Today, there’s broad recognition that athletes contribute real economic value to universities. That shift in perception is significant.
PP: How do you view the idea of athletes as employees and potential unions?
KS: Unionization is an interesting possibility. If athletes were to unionize, it could create practical agreements that benefit both the athletes and the institutions. Collective bargaining could address salaries and working conditions in a structured way.
There are legal complexities, especially around antitrust law, but collective bargaining frameworks can overcome those challenges. One issue has always been that athletes are a fleeting labor force — they come and go quickly. But recent changes allowing athletes to stay longer could create a more stable framework. The key is creating systems that acknowledge both the business realities and the educational mission.
PP: Are today’s student-athletes better positioned than those you wrote about originally?
KS: In many ways, yes. Athletes today have more financial and educational options. They’re entering college more financially sophisticated. The NFL Players Association, for example, has emphasized educating team representatives about this new generation of athletes. But with greater opportunity comes greater responsibility. Financial management guidance is critical. A college degree still provides significant lifetime benefits, especially if a professional career doesn’t materialize. Helping athletes preserve and grow their earnings is essential.
PP: How does this affect schools like Penn and the rest of the Ivy League?
KS: The Ivy League faces unique challenges. It traditionally hasn’t offered athletic scholarships, and its model is distinct from conferences like the SEC or Big Ten. But athletes now have more options than ever. Ivy institutions may need to rethink aspects of their approach — not necessarily abandoning their principles, but evaluating how to allocate resources and remain competitive for students who want both a prestigious degree and high-level athletic competition.
There’s also room for innovation. General managers, for example, can focus on talent retention and NIL strategy, while coaches concentrate on development and performance. That division of labor may become more common.
PP: What role do the transfer portal and revenue-sharing play in shaping the future?
KS: The transfer portal has accelerated mobility. Initially, it felt chaotic. But again, markets adjust. Over time, you’ll likely see clearer contracts, retention bonuses, and more stability.
Revenue-sharing discussions also raise important equity questions, especially around Title IX and women’s sports. There are ongoing legal conversations about how external NIL deals factor into these calculations. Those issues will need thoughtful solutions.
If we look at other sports models, we’ve seen similar transitions. When high-school athletes began entering the NBA, with players like Kevin Garnett leading the way, it seemed disruptive. Eventually, the market adjusted. The G League developed. College basketball found its place. I expect something similar in college athletics more broadly.
PP: If you were writing this book for the first time in 2026, what would define the era?
KS: I think we’d define this era as one of rapid transition. The NCAA’s centralized power has diminished, and conferences are increasingly influential. The SEC and Big Ten, in particular, may stand out even more in the coming years. But within five years, I’m optimistic that we’ll see more settled structures. Clearer compensation paths. More defined roles for different types of institutions. Greater acceptance of the idea that athlete compensation is part of the system, not an aberration. We’re in the messy middle right now. But history suggests things will stabilize.
PP: For readers picking up the updated edition, what conversation do you hope it sparks?
KS: I hope readers see this not just as a sports story, but as a case study in governance, incentives, and market evolution. College athletics offers a vivid example of what happens when long-standing rules collide with economic reality. It’s also a reminder that education remains central. Even as compensation increases, the long-term value of a degree matters. The challenge is aligning financial opportunity with educational purpose.
The issues explored in the original edition are no longer hypothetical — they’re playing out in real time. For alumni interested in business, law, policy, or the future of higher education, this moment offers a fascinating lens.
College sports will look different in five years. But understanding how we arrived here is essential to shaping what comes next.
Published as “Wild World of College Sports” in the Spring/Summer 2026 issue of Wharton Magazine.
