Cashing in on Content: An Analysis of Marketable College Football Players’ Social Media Strategies in the NIL Era

 

Cap Henneman

Journalism, Elon University

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in an undergraduate senior capstone course in communications

Abstract

As Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities redefine college athletics, social media has emerged as a critical tool for athlete self-marketing. This study explores marketable college football players’ content strategies on Instagram and TikTok, examining how these platforms serve distinct branding purposes. The researcher used content analysis to sort 15 college football players’ social media posts into different self-marketing categories and tracked engagement on each post. This research showed that players posted mainly athletic content on Instagram and mostly behind-the-scenes content on TikTok. Similarly, frontstage content reaped more engagement on Instagram, and backstage content received more engagement on TikTok. Additionally, individual trends showed variations in platform preference, content emphasis, and the impact of brand partnerships. Overall, these results supplemented prior research and were congruent with self-presentation theory.

Keywords: NIL, social media, self-presentation theory, college sports, Instagram, TikTok
Email: chenneman@elon.edu

I. Introduction

What do Duke’s Mayo, Beats by Dre, and PorkRinds.com have in common? They all have endorsement deals with current college football players (On3, 2024). This would have been unimaginable just five years ago. In July 2021, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) approved athletes to profit on their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). Three years after this decision, college athletes, coaches, agents, and insiders are still adapting to the shifting landscape of college sports that NIL catalyzed. To gain revenue through NIL, college athletes primarily rely on their on-field performance and self-marketing strategies.

Social media is one of the most common platforms for players to market themselves. Not only is it free to use, but it also has the potential to reach billions of people and enable people to build an audience. Since millions of dollars are at stake, college athletes still seek the best ways to build a strong personal brand on social media.

To understand more about self-marketing in the NIL era, this study will target the most effective social media strategies of marketable college football players on Instagram and TikTok through a content analysis of their posts in 2023. While scholars have studied self-presentation theory and marketing strategies that college athletes use across a variety of sports (Goffman, 1959; Arai et al., 2013; Wanzer, 2024), none have studied how athletes from a specific sport market themselves and the effectiveness of those strategies. By conducting a content analysis of college football players’ TikTok and Instagram accounts and tracking engagement, trends will emerge on which content styles are the most successful for different audiences.

II. Literature Review

This literature review examines prior research on Goffman’s self-presentation theory, which explains how people portray themselves to an audience. This theory strongly relates to how athletes use social media to self-market themselves, as self-presentation justifies reasoning for posting specific content. Prior research also includes comparing male and female college athletes’ social media strategies, how brand relationships drive social media engagement for athletes, and the differences between self-presentation between Instagram and TikTok. While considerable research has focused on the social media strategies of college athletes, few researchers have closely studied the strategies’ effectiveness in terms of engagement, with a sample from a single sport.

Self-Presentation Theory

Goffman (1959) proposed the Theory of Self-Presentation, which explains how people purposefully portray themselves to others to give a certain impression about their lives. Often, people control what they present to others, putting the most desirable aspects of their lives at the forefront (Schlenker, 2003). These ideas also translate to how people perceive someone’s impression. Someone may have a specific goal when they post an image online or share information when first meeting a person, but the theory also accounts for how the receiver of the information processes and judges it (Lupinetti, 2015). Self-presentation theory is essential when considering the audience and engagement of the content one gives.

Goffman (1959) explains that this information can be split into frontstage and backstage content. Frontstage content is widely available for everybody to see or anything that would likely be disclosed in a formal conversation. For example, this could be a person’s job, where they live, or what college they attended. In contrast, personal information like hobbies, lifestyle habits, and everyday behavior constitutes backstage content. Frontstage content typically reinforces the information people already know about a person, while backstage content gives a more authentic view of a person’s life or lifestyle.

Athlete Self-Branding and Brand Relationships

This distinction is particularly significant when considering the self-branding efforts of athletes, who are increasingly recognized not only as individuals but as brands themselves. Thompson (2006) defined a human brand as “any well-known persona who is the subject of marketing communications efforts” (p. 106). If a league, such as the NFL, is a brand, teams are sub-brands of the NFL, and the players are sub-brands of the team. Like any company markets and brands themselves, athletes must make themselves marketable to open themselves up for business opportunities, such as sponsorship and endorsement deals (Su et al., 2015). Consistent with research on celebrities from other industries, such as music and film, professional athletes receive extensive media attention, which allows them to market themselves. With this, athletes are able to drive fan perceptions and manage expectations, presenting their brand and organization in a positive light (Summers & Morgan, 2008).

These connections between players, their teams, and their leagues are considered brand relationships. These relationships between players and the larger brands they represent impact athletes’ success with their self-branding efforts. Su et al. (2015) found that football players entering the NFL draft with higher social media follower counts saw a greater increase after the draft than players with lower follower counts. It also found that the team that drafted them directly affected how much their follower count increased, showing the importance of brand relationships for athletes.

Although parallels can be made between athletes, celebrities, and larger corporations regarding brand management, it’s important to focus on the specific factors athletes use to brand themselves. The Model of Athlete Brand Image (MABI) introduces the three main categories of athlete branding content: Athletic Performance, Attractive Appearance, and Marketable Lifestyle. In this model, Athletic Performance is categorized as an athlete’s on-field sports performance, with the subcategories of athletic expertise, competition style, sportsmanship, and rivalry. Attractive Appearance is how an athlete portrays their physical appearance in coherence with conventional societal stereotypes, using the subcategories of physical attractiveness, symbol, and body fitness. Lastly, Marketable Lifestyle is how an athlete portrays the marketable aspects of their everyday life to show their value or personality from a behind-the-scenes view. This category is subdivided into life story, role model, and relationship effort (Arai et al., 2013).

This model takes a step further regarding Goffman’s self-presentation theory. In previous research, the categories have been broken up to show frontstage and backstage content trends, with Athletic Performance being frontstage content and Attractive Appearance and Marketable Lifestyle being backstage content. By applying this model to examine athletes’ social media accounts, researchers can identify trends in how athletes brand themselves as they relate to self-presentation. Wanzer et al. (2024) found that male college athletes post frontstage content more often, while female college athletes post backstage content more often. There were also differing trends between the content types on different platforms, with athletes posting more frontstage content on Instagram and backstage content on TikTok.

College Athletes and Name, Image, and Likeness

These platform-specific strategies highlight how self-branding, a long-standing practice among athletes, has evolved in the era of social media, particularly in the context of college athletes and their use of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities. In 2021, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) passed a rule allowing college athletes to profit off their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), which added a new group of athletes able to market themselves and profit from self-branding. Research predicts that this addition to college athletics would shift college athletes’ self-branding model to the professional model, where self-presentation and marketability become a crucial component (Johnson, 2023; Kunkel et al., 2021).

Since the introduction of NIL in college athletics, algorithms have been created to measure the projected valuation of an NCAA athlete based on a series of factors. One popular sports media company that has revolutionized this is On3. Terry (2022) noted that On3 NIL Valuations account for performance, influence, exposure, and deal data to value NCAA athletes’ NIL capabilities and rank them accordingly.

NIL opportunities also vary from school to school. Some schools can access extensive booster programs and endorsement deals for athletes when they arrive. Other lower-market schools do not have the luxury of funding players, leaving athletes to fend for themselves regarding NIL (Johnson, 2023). For example, the difference between NIL funding for Oregon, the number one ranking school for NIL efforts, and Memphis, the number 50 ranked school, is nearly $800 million (Crawford, 2024).

Social Media Self-Branding

Although Goffman’s self-presentation theory was originally developed to explain face-to-face interactions, it also applies to social media. Social media has become one of the most popular and accessible platforms for individuals, including athletes, to establish and maintain their personal brands. By allowing users to curate their self-presentation, social media provides opportunities to share authentic backstage content while also enabling idealized portrayals that emphasize the most desirable aspects of their lives. This dynamic is further shaped by the unique characteristics of different platforms, which influence both the type of content shared and levels of user engagement (Hollenbaugh, 2021).

Goffman’s framework highlights how individuals manage impressions through a careful balance of frontstage and backstage content. This theory is especially relevant in the NIL era, as college athletes must navigate the challenge of maintaining authenticity while maximizing their marketability. For instance, athletes strategically present frontstage content, such as their athletic achievements, while incorporating backstage content that humanizes them to sponsors and fans. This balance is essential for leveraging NIL opportunities, as sponsors increasingly favor athletes who blend professionalism with relatability, aligning closely with Goffman’s concept of selective self-presentation.

Social media plays a vital role in enabling individuals to create and manage their personal brands independently. Rather than relying on traditional media organizations to produce content about them, users can craft their own narratives that reflect their ideals of self-presentation (Khamis, 2016). This autonomy enhances their ability to control how they are perceived by their audience.

Self-Presentation on TikTok and Instagram

TikTok and Instagram are two of the most popular social media sites used for self-presentation. The content style differs between the two platforms as TikTok is designed for short videos, while Instagram is meant primarily for photos. Prior research found that TikTok users’ content is consistent with selective self-presentation, often highlighting their attractive features and using professional-grade camera equipment to present their best image possible. Additionally, content creators on TikTok use non-verbal messaging to push points across and reach a larger audience (Putro & Pulupi, 2022).

Although there are different mediums, Instagram is also used for selective self-presentation content. In a study researching athletes’ self-presentation on Instagram, it was found that most of the content posted was not athletic-based, and many of the posts framed the athletes in a popular light, whether it be attractiveness, or other backstage content like posing in front of an expensive car (Wanzer et al., 2024). It also found that the captions of the photos followed this same trend and fell into themes of “humanitarian,” “family driven,” “personality traits and interests,” “dedicated athlete,” “endorser,” and “socialite” (Smith & Sanderson, 2015).

Many studies have examined professional athletes’ self-presentation on social media, and a few have researched the self-presentation of college athletes. Most of these typically study the characteristics of male and female athletes on social media or use a sample of multiple sports. This research fills a gap by studying a sample from a specific sport and tracking the engagement of each MABI category to answer the following:

RQ1: How do marketable college football players apply self-presentation theory and manage their athletic brand identity (MABI) on Instagram and TikTok?

RQ2: How does the self-presentation of marketable college football players differ between Instagram and TikTok?

RQ3: How does the audience engage differently between content strategies and platforms?

III. Methods

This study employed a quantitative content analysis to examine the self-presentation strategies and engagement patterns of NCAA Division 1 football players on social media platforms. The research focused on identifying how athletes curated their online personas through posts on Instagram and TikTok during the 2023 calendar year. The method consisted of sample selection, data collection, and data analysis, with the goal of categorizing posts into self-presentation categories and comparing engagement metrics across platforms. The following sections outline the procedures in detail.

Sample Selection

The researcher began by picking a sample of players. To qualify for the sample, a player must be on the On3 Top 100 NIL list for football, have been on an NCAA Division 1 roster during the 2023 football season, have a social media following on both Instagram and TikTok (more than 1,000 followers), and have public Instagram and TikTok accounts. The athlete must also have five or more posts on each platform in 2023. Due to Instagram users being able to hide like-counts for their posts, only posts with the like-counts visible were considered.

The researcher then selected 15 players from the On3 Top 100 NIL Valuation list for football who met the criteria. The sample size allowed for a variety of different athletes and was manageable for collecting and processing the data. To select the sample, the researcher used the On3 rankings (starting at 1) and selected the top players who fit the criteria.

Data Collection

Once the sample was chosen, the researcher collected the follower counts and looked at each post the athlete made on Instagram and TikTok in the 2023 calendar year. Separating the two platforms, the researcher sorted each post based on the three self-presentation MABI categories: Athletic Performance, Attractive Appearance, and Marketable Lifestyle (Wanzer, 2024). To categorize each post, the researcher examined the content to see which category the post fell under.

A post was categorized as Athletic Performance if it showed the player pregame, in-game, postgame, in practice, or achieving an athletic accolade. A post was categorized as an Attractive Appearance post if it portrayed the athlete showing off his appearance. This includes, but is not limited to, a shirtless photo, a selfie, or a provocative dance. Lastly, Marketable Lifestyle posts were categorized as posts that showed desirable aspects of a player’s everyday life. This includes but is not limited to, posts with a girlfriend, an expensive car, a group of friends, a product endorsement, or a vlog-style post. Some posts were in a slideshow format with a combination of categories. In this case, it was at the researcher’s discretion which category the post was most portrayed in.  Once each post was categorized, the researcher tracked the quantitative engagement (number of likes) on each post in each category. Although there are alternative methods to quantify engagement, likes were used due to time constraints and accessibility to the researcher.

Data Analysis

To answer the three research questions, the researcher compared data via a spreadsheet. On the spreadsheet, the researcher created a series of tables to compare different variables. For Instagram, the researcher reviewed the number of posts in each self-presentation category across the sample. It was then determined which category received the most engagement based on the mean and median engagement for each. The process was repeated for TikTok.

The researcher then compared the statistics found between the two platforms to see how the content style and engagement differ on a platform-to-platform basis. Lastly, the researcher compared how data based on engagement and platform differs between Instagram and TikTok and the categories on the MABI. The resulting data is visualized using tables with the number of posts made in each category and mean and median engagement.

IV. Results

The sample selection for this research resulted in 15 college football players from the On3 Top 100 NIL Valuation list. The sample had an average Instagram follower count of 371,800 and an average TikTok follower count of 340,686. Information regarding the follower count for each player in the sample and which school they go to is displayed in Figure 1.

Player School Instagram Followers TikTok Followers
Shedeur Sanders Colorado 1,900,000 642,400
Travis Hunter Colorado 1,500,000 1,500,000
Nico Iamaliva Tennessee 200,000 131,800
Evan Stewart Texas A&M 262,000 2,100,000
Shilo Sanders Colorado 1,000,000 362,200
Jonah Coleman Washington 206,000 135,900
Brady Cook Missouri 34,900 31,300
Kaleb Johnson Iowa 28,800 11,800
Nic Scourton Texas A&M 12,700 6,581
Will Johnson Michigan 104,000 6,705
Taylen Green Arkansas 20,600 10,500
Isaiah Bond Texas 149,000 69,300
Tahj Brooks Texas Tech 18,700 1,504
Avery Johnson Kansas State 47,500 46,600
Luther Burden Missouri 92,800 53,700
Average 371,800 340,686

Fig. 1: The sample, their school, and the follower count for each platform

Significant data was collected after conducting a content analysis of the sample’s Instagram and TikTok accounts. In total, 622 posts were collected across both platforms, 226 from Instagram and 396 from TikTok.

To answer Research Questions 1 and 2, the posts were coded and divided into three categories. This data can be seen in Figure 2. For Instagram, it was found that 61.06% of the sample’s posts were from the Athletic Performance category of the MABI, with 138 posts. Additionally, Attractive Appearance made up 11.95% of the posts with 27 total posts, and Marketable Lifestyle made up 26.99% of the posts with 61 posts.

The data collected for TikTok showed results that were different from those of Instagram. 36.36% of the TikTok posts collected were in the Athletic Performance category with 144 posts, 23.99% of the posts fell into the Attractive Appearance category with 95 posts, with the remaining 35.05% of the posts as Marketable Lifestyle with 157 posts in total.

Across both platforms, Athletic Performance was the most posted category, with 282 (45.34%) of the total posts. Marketable Lifestyle was the second most posted category, with 218 (35.05%) of the total posts. Attractive Appearance came in last, with 122 (19.61%) of the total posts.

Content Frequency Athletic Performance Attractive Appearance Marketable Lifestyle
Instagram 138 (61.06%) 27 (11.95%) 61 (26.99%)
TikTok 144 (36.36%) 95 (23.99%) 157 (39.65%)
Total 282 122 218
Percentage 45.34% 19.61% 35.05%

Fig. 2: Number of posts for each category, with the percentage total in parentheses

To answer Research Question 3, engagement results were also collected in this process, with the “like count” for each post being recorded.

For Instagram, Athletic Performance posts averaged 61,876 likes per post with a median of 13,270, Attractive Appearance posts received an average of 29,444 likes per post with a median of 8,539, and Marketable Lifestyle posts averaged 42,515 likes per post with a median of 15,242.

Similarly to the number of posts for each category between the platforms, the engagement data also differed.  For TikTok, Athletic Performance posts averaged 18,664 likes per post with a median of 1,226, Attractive Appearance posts averaged 24,517 likes per post, and Marketable Lifestyle posts averaged 19,670 likes per post with a median of 2,284.

Across both platforms, Athletic Performance averaged the highest number of likes with 39,810.52, Marketable Lifestyle had the second highest average with 26,063.08 likes per post, and Attractive Appearance followed closely behind with 25,607.16 likes per post.

Engagement Athletic Performance Avg. Likes (Median) Attractive Appearance Avg. Likes (Median) Marketable Lifestyle Avg. Likes (Median)
Instagram 61,876 (13,270) 29,444 (8,539) 42,515 (15,242)
TikTok 18,664 (1,226) 24,517 (840) 19,670 (2,284)
Total Average 39,810.52 25,607.16 26,063.08

Fig. 3: Average likes per post with median likes in parentheses

There were also notable outliers in the sample that are significant to mention. Evan Stewart posted 41 TikToks in the Attractive Appearance category, gaining over 1.5 million likes from this category alone. Nic Scourton posted 118 TikTok posts in 2023 and gained just over 17,000 likes in total. Brady Cook and Will Johnson posted only Athletic Performance posts on TikTok. Finally, Shedeur Sanders, Shilo Sanders, and Travis Hunter had very high follower and engagement counts, with the three players all coming from the University of Colorado Boulder.

V. Discussion

This study contributes to self-presentation theory in the digital age by demonstrating how athletes strategically curate platform-specific content to manage their public personas. On TikTok, where algorithm-driven discovery and a younger demographic prevail, athletes emphasize backstage content. Marketable Lifestyle posts – such as behind-the-scenes glimpses into their daily lives – help them appear relatable and engage audiences. Conversely, Instagram’s polished aesthetic and established follower networks encourage frontstage content, particularly posts highlighting Athletic Performance, to project professionalism and credibility. These findings align with Goffman’s (1959) self-presentation framework, illustrating how athletes adapt their impression management strategies to the unique affordances and audience expectations of each platform.

The research also highlights differences in content strategies and engagement patterns across Instagram and TikTok using the MABI framework. While athletes predominantly post Athletic Performance content on Instagram, Marketable Lifestyle content is more common on TikTok. Engagement metrics mirror these trends, with Athletic Performance posts averaging the highest likes on Instagram and Attractive Appearance posts performing best on TikTok. These results suggest that athletes tailor their content based on the preferences of their platform-specific audiences, reinforcing Goffman’s notion of catering to audience expectations.

The findings align with prior research, such as Wanzer et al. (2024), which indicates that male athletes post more frontstage content on Instagram and more backstage content on TikTok. For instance, Instagram posts often feature athletic accolades, highlight videos, and celebratory moments, while TikTok posts leverage trends like dances or humorous captions to engage a broader, younger audience. These patterns support Putro and Pulupi’s (2022) research, showing that non-verbal messaging and trends on TikTok are effective for expanding reach.

Athletes’ engagement strategies reflect the theoretical foundations of self-presentation. For example, players tend to replicate content types that yield higher engagement, demonstrating a feedback loop where audience preferences influence posting behavior. Evan Stewart exemplifies this, with his frequent Attractive Appearance posts on TikTok generating significantly higher engagement than his peers, showcasing how athletes can refine their strategies to maximize their online presence.

Notably, the study also reveals outliers and exceptions. For instance, Brady Cook and Will Johnson primarily posted frontstage content on TikTok, deviating from platform norms. Similarly, Nic Scourton’s high volume of TikTok posts garnered minimal engagement, suggesting a misalignment with audience expectations, contradicting self-presentation theory. These anomalies highlight the importance of strategic content planning.

The findings have actionable implications for athletes, sports managers, and NIL education programs. Universities and athletic programs should provide training on platform-specific strategies, encouraging athletes to use TikTok for casual, relatable content and Instagram for polished, professional branding. NIL policies could also evolve to include tools for leveraging social media analytics, enabling athletes to showcase their marketability to sponsors with metrics like engagement rates and audience demographics. Additionally, sponsors might prioritize athletes who demonstrate versatility in blending Athletic Performance and Marketable Lifestyle content across platforms.

Despite the study’s contributions, it has limitations. The sample size and reliance on outliers may skew averages, as evidenced by discrepancies between mean and median engagement figures. Additionally, this study only focuses on one type of engagement in likes. Future research could address these limitations by analyzing separate samples for each platform or conducting in-depth content analyses with smaller, more focused groups. Such studies could explore captions, comments, shares, and hashtags to deepen insights into athletes’ engagement strategies.

This research underscores the distinct strengths of Instagram and TikTok in self-presentation. Instagram is ideal for showcasing athletic achievements, while TikTok excels in promoting relatable, behind-the-scenes content. Athletes can maximize engagement by aligning their content strategies with Goffman’s (1959) framework, emphasizing audience-driven self-presentation. By doing so, they can enhance their marketability and leverage NIL opportunities effectively.

In terms of practical recommendations, athletes should adopt platform-specific strategies to optimize engagement and marketability. For TikTok, athletes should use casual, conversational captions that encourage interaction (e.g., “What’s your pregame ritual?”) and incorporate trending hashtags such as #FootballTikTok or #NILLife to boost discoverability. Collaborating with teammates or influencers through challenges or duets could further expand reach. For Instagram, athletes should pair Athletic Performance posts with professional, motivational captions (e.g., “Every game is another chance to prove what hard work can achieve”). Consistency is also important, such as adding the word “legendary” in multiple posts of the same content category. Additionally, they could focus on brand-aligned hashtags such as #GameDay or #AthleteLife and partner with brands or alumni networks to co-create engaging content. By tailoring strategies to platform strengths and audience preferences, athletes can enhance their social media presence, strengthen engagement, and position themselves as attractive partners in the NIL marketplace.

Study results also offer insights for athlete media training programs. The distinct engagement trends highlighted in this study underscore the need for tailored media training. Training programs should teach athletes how to optimize content for TikTok and Instagram by emphasizing platform-specific strengths. For example, on TikTok, athletes could focus on creating relatable, informal videos, while on Instagram, they could develop visually polished content that highlights professionalism and athletic achievement. Training programs could include sessions on planning diverse content calendars and using analytics to track post-performance. Athletes could learn to interpret engagement metrics to refine their strategies, such as identifying which types of posts resonate most with their audience. Media training could emphasize how to partner with brands, influencers, or teammates to maximize content visibility. For example, athletes could be taught to co-create content that aligns with both their personal brand and sponsor goals, strengthening their NIL potential.

These findings highlight the importance of integrating social media strategy into NIL valuation and training processes, helping athletes maximize their marketability while providing sponsors with reliable metrics for partnership decisions.

VI. Conclusion

As NIL marketing and social media increasingly work in tandem, this study aimed to shed light on engagement strategies used by marketable college athletes on Instagram and TikTok. In alignment with prior research, it was found that athletes primarily use Instagram for frontstage content and TikTok for backstage content. The research also shows that frontstage content receives more engagement on Instagram, whereas backstage content receives more engagement on TikTok. Individual trends from the sample also emerged as certain players utilized particular platforms and content types or reaped the benefits of a strong brand relationship. Overall, this study contributed to the sports and communications fields by highlighting the most effective self-marketing strategies for athletes across two platforms.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dr. Bill Anderson for his support throughout the brainstorming, research, writing, and revision processes. This research paper would not be possible without his help. Also, a huge thank you to my entire Great Ideas class and my family for their support behind the scenes.

References

Arai, A., Ko, Y. J., & Ross, S. (2013). Branding athletes: Exploration and conceptualization of athlete brand image. Sport Management Review, 17(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.04.003

Crawford, B. (2024). College football’s top 50 programs ranked by NIL efforts. 247Sports. https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-footballs-top-50-programs-ranked-by-nil-efforts-235181311/#2472518

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. In W. Longhofer & D. Winchester (Eds.), Social theory re-wired: New connections to classical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 450-459). Routledge.

Johnson, D. (2023). A field of dreams: How NIL changed the game for student athletes. Journal of Financial Planning, 36(5), 40-52.

Kunkel, T., Baker, B. J., Baker, T. A., & Doyle, J. P. (2021). There is no nil in NIL: examining the social media value of student-athletes’ names, images, and likeness. Sport Management Review, 24(5), 839–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/14413523.2021.1880154

Lupinetti, V. M. (2015). Self-presentation and social media: A qualitative examination of the use of Instagram by amateur NPC female figure competitors [Unpublished master’s thesis]. San Jose State University. https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.zbmv-39zh

Putro, T., & Palupi, P. (2022). TikTok and online selective self-presentation. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 661, 33-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220501.005

Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 492-518). Guilford.

SkullSparks [@SkullSparks]. (2024, January 18). All 134 FBS college football programs ranked by total followers on official team social accounts (IG+TW+FB) plus increase from 2023. https://x.com/SkullSparks/status/1748017346965311968

Smith, L. R., & Sanderson, J. (2015). I’m going to Instagram it! An analysis of athlete self-presentation on Instagram. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(2), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1029125

Su, Y., Baker, B. J., Doyle, J. P., & Kunkel, T. (2020). The rise of an athlete brand: Factors influencing the social media following of athletes. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 29, 33-46. https://doi.org/10.32731/SMQ.291.302020.03

Summers, J. & Morgan, M. J. (2008). More than just the media: Considering the role of public relations in the creation of sporting celebrity and the management of fan expectations. Public Relations Review, 34(2), 176-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.03.014

Terry, S. (2022). About On3 NIL valuation, roster value and NIL. On3. https://www.on3.com/nil/news/about-on3-nil-valuation-per-post-value/

Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.3.104

Wanzer, C. V., Pfender, E. J., Travis, N. P., & Bleakley, A. (2024). Mapping the field: A content analysis of marketable NCAA athletes’ social media self-presentation. Communication & Sport, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795241232404