I get that but we're sort of conflating two things.
Nike has the "brand" deals with schools. Phil Knight also gives a ton of money to help fund Oregon's NIL - specifically. One poster argued that Phil Knight has a tremendous ROI into that NIL fund
I understand the return on brand deals. I'm asking about Phil Knight's contributions to Oregon's NIL funds. I'm not pretending to know the answer to that question, I'm asking why the previous poster is confident in his claim they are making money from that decision. I'm not even saying that poster is wrong, I'm just curious why they believe what they do.
My thought was that he was conflating these two things as well, but I could be wrong.