The landscape of college football has undergone a seismic shift in recent years, thanks largely to the rise of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals. For many athletes, this change has been a long-overdue opportunity to capitalize on their talents and marketability. However, not everyone is thrilled with the direction the sport is heading. Georgia Bulldogs head coach Kirby Smart recently shared his concerns, warning that NIL could lead to a future where college football championships are essentially bought rather than earned.

Speaking to the media, Smart emphasized that while NIL has its benefits, it’s also creating a divide between programs with deep pockets and those without. “You could end up with some haves and have-nots out there,” he said, “and ultimately a team could drive prices and go buy a championship, like you’re talking about with super teams.”

This sentiment touches on what many traditionalists fear: the erosion of long-term player development and the rise of a free-agency-style culture in college football. In past eras, fans grew attached to players who spent three or four years with the same team, watching them evolve from raw freshmen into seasoned leaders. That continuity and loyalty were a core part of what made college football unique.

Now, with players transferring frequently in search of better NIL opportunities, that sense of progression and identity is slipping away. Smart points out that while teams like Georgia may benefit from strong NIL support, he is more concerned with the integrity of the sport itself. His fear isn’t about losing players or falling behind in recruiting—Georgia remains one of the top programs in the country—but rather the precedent being set.

“There’s something special about building a team, developing players, and watching them grow in your program,” Smart implied. “When schools start relying solely on buying talent from other programs, it changes what college football is fundamentally about.”

While NIL has undoubtedly empowered student-athletes and allowed them to profit from their hard work, it has also introduced an arms race. Wealthier programs—or those backed by aggressive donor collectives—can offer players significantly more money, creating an uneven playing field. The result is a college football landscape where financial clout can overshadow coaching, culture, and development.

Of course, the reality is that NIL is likely here to stay. The question, then, becomes how to regulate and structure it so that college football doesn’t lose its soul in the process. Smart seems to be advocating for reforms that would level the playing field and discourage the formation of “super teams” built exclusively through transfer portal bidding wars.

Ultimately, Kirby Smart’s concern isn’t about losing competitive ground. It’s about preserving what makes college football special—team building, loyalty, and the joy of watching athletes develop over time. While NIL can coexist with those values, Smart believes it will take intentional effort and likely some regulation to ensure the sport doesn’t veer too far into a pay-for-play model that undermines the integrity of championships.

As the NCAA and college football programs continue to navigate the evolving NIL era, voices like Smart’s are calling for a balance—one that allows players to benefit financially while keeping the spirit of the game intact.