Who has the highest NIL deal in college sports? There is no public ledger of every athlete contract, so no definitive answer. On3’s September 29, 2026, ranking places Miami quarterback Darian Mensah first at $6.5 million, followed by Kentucky basketball player Milan Momcilovic and Louisville basketball player Flory Bidunga at $6 million each. Those are On3 NIL Valuations under its current deal-based model, not audited payments or a ranking of all endorsement income.
The useful question for an athlete is what a headline number measures: a current annual contract value, a multi-year reported package, a sponsor endorsement, a school payment, or money already received. This guide explains the differences and shows what to check before using another athlete’s figure as a benchmark for an offer.
NIL means name, image, and likeness: commercial uses of an athlete’s identity, such as advertising, licensing, appearances, and sponsored content. The NCAA’s interim policy opened broad NIL opportunities for college athletes on July 1, 2021. High school eligibility has separate state and athletic-association rules. Since 2025, participating Division I schools have also been able to make certain direct payments under the House settlement. Those school payments are a different category from a third-party brand contract.
Who leads the current On3 NIL ranking
In On3’s ranking last updated September 29, 2026, Darian Mensah is first at $6.5 million. Milan Momcilovic and Flory Bidunga are tied at $6 million, followed by Dante Moore and Jeremiah Smith at $5 million. On3’s list changes, so identify the source and date whenever quoting it. The figures are labeled “NIL Valuation” by On3; the term now has a different meaning from the site’s older projection model.
On3 changed its methodology on July 1, 2026. It now describes its NIL Valuation as the current value of a player contract with a college or collective, rather than an estimate of future marketing or endorsement potential. A green checkmark denotes a valuation based on a confirmed player contract; other figures draw on On3 and Rivals reporting about negotiations and deal activity. Neither label establishes how much an athlete has actually been paid, what taxes or fees apply, or the value of separate brand endorsements.
This distinction matters when a reader sees an older On3 number beside a 2026 number. Before July 2026, On3 used an algorithm-based estimate of market value. After the change, its college ranking targets contract value. A numerical change across those periods may reflect a change in measurement as well as a change in the athlete’s market.
Even a current contract-based valuation is not a complete income statement. A signed agreement may include installments, conditions, rights granted over multiple years, or money that has not yet been paid. Public reports rarely disclose every term. Treat rankings as attributed snapshots, not proof of net earnings.
That is why the phrase “highest NIL deal” needs a definition. A ranking of annual school or collective contract value cannot establish the largest lifetime package, the largest third-party endorsement, or the most cash received in one tax year. If a headline does not specify its measure and period, it may be misleading even when its quoted number is accurate.
The Fox Sports list published in June 2025 is a historical snapshot of older On3 figures. It should not be presented as a current ranking or compared directly with On3’s post-July 2026 deal-based figures. Link to the live ranking for current positions and retain the 2025 list only if the article is explicitly discussing how the market and measurement changed.
For example, a past ranking that placed Arch Manning first does not answer who leads On3’s current board. The old and new lists use different dates and different valuation methods. Quote each with its publication date and definition rather than subtracting one figure from the other.
On3’s current list is useful for a dated snapshot of college and collective contract values. It is not a complete database of signed NIL contracts. A reader who wants to compare offers should first identify the payer, term, rights, guarantees, and contingencies behind each reported amount.
A dated snapshot of the top On3 figures
The figures below come from On3’s college NIL ranking last updated September 29, 2026. They are On3’s published valuations under its current contract-focused method. Rankings can change after publication, and the underlying contracts may not be publicly available.
Do not add a “delta” between these figures and a reported multi-year package. Such a subtraction mixes periods and may mix school payments, collective contracts, endorsements, and estimates. To compare two figures fairly, first put them on the same time basis and confirm they describe the same type of compensation.
- Darian Mensah, Miami football: $6.5 million On3 NIL Valuation.
- Milan Momcilovic, Kentucky basketball: $6 million On3 NIL Valuation.
- Flory Bidunga, Louisville basketball: $6 million On3 NIL Valuation.
- Dante Moore, Oregon football: $5 million On3 NIL Valuation.
- Jeremiah Smith, Ohio State football: $5 million On3 NIL Valuation.
What an NIL collective does
An NIL collective is a third-party organization that helps arrange or fund athlete opportunities, often with a connection to a particular school’s supporters. Its legal structure, source of funds, and contract terms vary. A collective agreement may involve promotional services, licensing rights, and scheduled payments; the word “collective” alone does not explain what the athlete must do or what they will receive.
Collectives are distinct from a school, even when they support athletes at one institution. That distinction matters in Division I: a qualifying third-party NIL deal must be reported, and a deal involving a party associated with the school may receive additional review. Ask who actually funds and guarantees payment, what commercial activity is required, and what happens if the athlete transfers.
The 2025 House settlement permits participating Division I schools to provide certain direct benefits within its framework. Those payments should not be described as collective deals or counted automatically as outside endorsement income. Conversely, a collective cannot use a nominal NIL contract merely to pay for enrollment or athletic performance.
Why reported packages and rankings differ
A reported package and an On3 valuation may cover different time periods or sources of money. A four-year package is not directly comparable with a one-year value; a guaranteed amount is not the same as possible bonuses; and a brand endorsement may sit outside a school or collective contract. Divide a multi-year total by its term only as a rough annual average, then check whether payments are front-loaded, conditional, or subject to cancellation.
Publicly reported deal figures may come from an athlete, agent, school, collective, or unnamed source. Unless the contract or a reliable first-party statement is available, describe the amount as reported and name the outlet. Do not convert a reported negotiation or offer into a signed or paid amount.
A lower ranking does not prove that an athlete accepted less money overall. The athlete could have separate endorsements, a different payment schedule, or other contract terms that a ranking does not capture. Conversely, a large headline total may include years of future payments that the athlete will never receive if conditions are not met.
Transfers can change the terms
The transfer portal can create new contract opportunities, but it also creates risk. An existing agreement may have termination, repayment, exclusivity, or usage-right provisions that survive a move. A prospective school’s supporters may be associated parties under Division I review rules. Before treating a transfer-related offer as firm compensation, identify the payer, promised services, reporting obligations, and what happens if the transfer does not occur.
Do not describe every transfer-related payment as a permissible bidding price for enrollment. NCAA rules distinguish genuine third-party NIL work from compensation for attending a school or athletic participation. Participating schools may make separate direct payments under the House framework. The classification and compliance analysis depend on the actual agreement.
College versus professional opportunities
For an athlete deciding whether to return to college or enter a professional draft, a reported NIL package is one financial input, not a complete comparison. The athlete should compare guaranteed and contingent pay, term, taxes, agent fees, insurance, education, draft prospects, and professional contract rules. Public coverage seldom provides all of those facts.
Avoid attributing an athlete’s decision solely to a reported NIL figure unless the athlete has said so. A return to school may involve development, academics, family, roster fit, or a different assessment of professional risk. An unsigned offer and a confirmed contract also have very different value to the person making the decision.
What a school count in a ranking can and cannot show
A count of athletes from one school in a top-100 list shows representation in that publisher’s ranking at one point in time. It is not a measure of total athletics spending, the number of NIL deals, or the amount a school pays directly. Roster composition and the publisher’s coverage can affect the count.
For that reason, do not infer that one collective funded every ranked athlete at a school. A student-athlete may have school payments, collective arrangements, independent endorsements, or several sources of compensation. The public ranking generally does not separate all of them.
A better comparison would specify the same season, sport, payment category, and source for each institution. Without those inputs, a program-level ranking can suggest patterns but cannot support a claim that one school or collective spent more than another.
How On3 calculates its NIL Valuation now
On3 says it moved from an algorithm-based model to a deal-based model on July 1, 2026. Its college figure is intended to reflect current player contract value from colleges or collectives, not an athlete’s total endorsement potential.
- A green checkmark on On3 indicates a valuation based on a confirmed player contract.
- Other valuations rely on reporting by On3 and Rivals insiders about negotiations, expected market value, roster demand, program market, player profile, and current deal activity.
- Neither category should be presented as an audited statement of payments received or as the value of every separate brand deal.
The site may update a figure when new contract information becomes available. Its older descriptions of social-following and performance inputs applied to an earlier model. Do not reuse that old formula to explain a 2026 ranking.
For any figure, record the publisher, date, time period, contract category, and whether the underlying deal was confirmed or inferred. Those details make a number useful; without them, the figure is easy to misread.
What about women athletes and non-football sports
The current On3 college board includes football and basketball athletes near the top, but that does not establish where all NIL money is concentrated. On3’s current measure focuses on college and collective contracts. Independent endorsements, licensed products, appearance fees, and social media partnerships may not be captured in the same way.
Athletes in women’s sports and sports outside football can build substantial commercial partnerships. Comparing those arrangements with a school or collective contract requires the same discipline: identify the payer, term, rights, source, and whether the amount is guaranteed, reported, or paid.
A prominent endorsement campaign can be valuable without appearing near the top of a college contract ranking. A ranking therefore cannot, by itself, establish the highest-paid woman athlete or the largest deal outside football.
Do not assume a sport’s position in one top-100 list measures the opportunities available to every athlete in that sport. Audience, market, brand fit, work required, and individual rights can matter more to a sponsor than a national ranking.
The same caution applies to an athlete with a strong social audience. A sponsor may pay for specific promotional reach while a school or collective contract covers a different set of rights. Add those categories only when the underlying amounts and periods are known.
Use the publisher’s current sport-specific rankings for a dated snapshot, then verify any athlete-level claim against the cited source. Do not describe a changing list as a permanent leaderboard.
What to check before accepting an NIL offer
A headline about another athlete is a starting point for negotiation, not a market rate for your contract. Ask: Who is paying and who guarantees payment? What work and usage rights are required? Is the stated amount annual or multi-year, gross or net, guaranteed or conditional? What happens after injury, transfer, termination, or a missed deliverable? Are there exclusivity, renewal, or repayment clauses? Check school policy, applicable state law, and Division I NIL Go reporting and review requirements before signing.
K Altman Law can help athletes and families review an NIL offer, understand the rights being granted, and identify contract and compliance questions to resolve before signing. Contact the firm to discuss the specific agreement; a public ranking cannot tell you whether its terms are fair for your circumstances.
Sources
On3, NIL Valuations (ranking last updated September 29, 2026)
On3, About On3 NIL Valuation (July 2026 methodology change)
On3, Top 10 highest On3 NIL Valuations in college sports (July 14, 2026)
NCAA, Name, Image and Likeness (current rules and reporting)
NCAA, proposed Division I NIL rule changes and settlement implementation