Barnhart defends UK’s “In-House” NIL strategy, but model could bring friction
Kentucky Athletics Director Mitch Barnhart made it clear this week — when it comes to name, image and likeness deals, the University of Kentucky wants to keep them close to home. It is a policy right out of the Stone Ages.
“It gives us an opportunity so that our partners are somewhat protected,” Barnhart said. “The intellectual property, institutional property; it’s really important that if people want to use our marks, use our facilities for part of their endorsement property, that’s part of the deal. You come to the University of Kentucky and you’re part of our family and you get to use our things, but also that’s part of the relationship. There’s a responsibility and a right that comes with that.”
One of the biggest criticisms leveled against Mitch Barnhart is that he has been slow to address NIL, and modernizing Kentucky's athletic department. That is not going to go away with this move. Recruits are not going to like this.
On its face, the approach is about brand control. UK invests heavily in its marks, facilities, and image — and Barnhart’s vision is that NIL activity involving those assets should run through the school. It’s a model designed to ensure that corporate partners, donors, and sponsors all operate in harmony instead of competing for the same space.
The upside is clear:
- UK can protect the value of its trademarks and facilities.
- Deals will align with the school’s core sponsors.
- It gives student-athletes access to premium spaces and marketing tools under one roof.
The potential conflict? NIL freedom was built on the idea that athletes can negotiate independently. If Kentucky’s model channels most high-value opportunities through school-run operations, it could frustrate some athletes or their agents, especially if outside collectives or non-partner brands want to do business. And as NIL-related lawsuits continue to mount nationally, the line between “brand management” and “restriction” is thin.
For now, Barnhart is betting that the advantages — a cohesive, protective NIL system that leverages UK’s scale — will outweigh the grumbling. But in the fast-shifting NIL landscape, keeping everything “in-house” could be just as much of a challenge as letting it all roam free.