Recently, many Mississippians have taken to social media to voice their concerns over MS House Bill 4014  –  an act to amend Mississippi’s existing income tax law to add NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals. Much of this concern is understandable, given that Mississippi continues to rank among the lowest in teacher pay nationwide. Any policy that reduces potential state revenue is going to raise questions, especially when weighed against ongoing public needs such as education funding. However, MS House Bill 4014 may provide strategic benefits that extend beyond its immediate and visible effects.

This bill allows NIL compensation to be one of the income types that are excluded from “gross income” for tax purposes – meaning that college athletes in Mississippi will owe zero state income tax on their NIL earnings (but still owe federal). Prior to this bill, an Ole Miss football player receiving $100,000 from an NIL deal would’ve owed $3,600 in state taxes. For a 17-21 year old, that’s a lot of money still left on the table – which left Mississippi facing a structural disadvantage compared to states with no income tax, such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee. This bill is one way Mississippi is trying to close that gap.

This policy emerges in the broader context of the House v. NCAA settlement, which formalized a revenue-sharing structure in college athletics, beginning with a $20.5 million cap per school in the 2025–2026 academic year, increasing annually. After the settlement, schools are now expected to share more revenue with athletes, and NIL deals are becoming a bigger part of the picture – and small differences in take-home pay can influence where these athletes choose to play.

Supporters of HB 4014 argue that the bill makes Mississippi schools more competitive in recruiting. And better players can lead to more wins, more ticket sales, more donations, and more attention for the programs. But this only works if better recruits actually turn into winning teams — and that doesn’t always happen. Improving recruiting does not guarantee winning seasons, and winning seasons do not always produce sufficient revenue to eliminate financial deficits. Additionally, NIL money is often funded by third-party collectives rather than directly by universities, so the connection between athlete pay and school finances isn’t always clear. As a result, HB 4014 should be understood not as a direct solution to athletic deficits, but as a policy that tries to keep Mississippi competitive.

There’s also a tradeoff. Every dollar the state doesn’t collect in taxes is a dollar that can’t go toward things that improve the welfare economy – such as schools, roads, or teacher pay. The total amount of lost revenue from this bill may not be astronomical, but it’s still real, and it’s worth thinking about – especially given Mississippi’s existing needs. On the flip side, if stronger recruiting does lead to better-performing programs, there could be broader economic benefits – which, as an induced effect, could be money that the state could use to improve the welfare economy (over time).

At the end of the day, this bill is a fat bet. Mississippi is betting that letting athletes keep more of their NIL money will make its schools more competitive, and in return, bring in more revenue and ease some of the financial pressure on athletic programs. If it doesn’t, the state will have given up tax revenue without seeing much return. It ultimately depends on recruiting, team performance, fans showing up, and how college sports continue to evolve. For now, HB 4014 isn’t a guaranteed win or loss – it’s a gamble.

Sources

1. NCAA Revenues
2. MS House Bill No. 4014
3. House v. NCAA Settlement
4. Ole Miss proposed $20-22 mill spending
5. Ole Miss’ 2024 Deficit
6. Ole Miss’2025 Deficit
7. MS Tax Law