fbpx

NIL Network

Home In The News Legislation News

Legislation News

State NIL map 7-7
Legislation NewsNavigate NILNIL Network InsightsUnderstanding the NIL Industry

State Name, Image, and Likeness Legislation

by michelle
NCAA/LEGAL NEWS
NIL changes to take effect in South Carolina, Oregon, Connecticut
The NIL Paradox for NCAA Athletes—Enforce or Recruit?
Lawmakers discuss how best to pay college athletes
NCAA Digging into Miami’s NIL Deals, Meets UM Booster
Louisiana governor signs law to give NIL collectives more power
Missouri becomes latest state to overhaul NIL legislation, give collectives more power
NCAA Enforcement Begins Attempted NIL Crackdown With Miami Inquiry
MSHSL approves NIL for high school athletes, mandates shot clock for 2023-24 season
CT’s high school athletes can profit from ‘NIL’ ads and sponsorship deals, but many questions remain
Illinois Amends NIL Legislation, Only a Year After Initial Bill
NCAA Says It’s Investigating ‘Potential Violations’ Regarding NIL
Missouri Latest State to Amend NIL Law
Current high school NIL rules in each of the 50 states (plus D.C.)
CIAC student-athletes permitted to profit from name, image and likeness
State of Illinois NIL amendment a potential ‘game-changer’ for Illini
New NCAA Name, Image, Likeness Guidance Has Immediate Impact on NIL “Collectives”
Illinois NIL State Law: Amendment to House Bill 1175
Ohio high school athletes still banned from NIL arena
Fissures already appearing after NCAA’s attempted crackdown on NIL from boosters, collectives
Report: How Many Schools Have Reported NIL Violations
Think NIL blew up college sports? California is going for the knockout with new bill
NCAA ‘NIL’ Guidance Places Association At Renewed Antitrust Risk
Forget NIL — these are the real issues college leaders need to solve
Missouri legislature passes amendment allowing colleges — and coaches — to assist with NIL deals
This Louisiana bill would loosen restrictions on LSU and athletes’ endorsement deals
Transfer windows, recruiting periods and more: Previewing the NCAA’s summer of rule changes
Louisiana colleges, boosters could soon pay student-athletes, recruits directly
Economic impact analysis: Bill designed to transform college sports in California will have massive implications for athletic budgets
ALSTON LAWYER KESSLER WELCOMES NCAA NIL POLICE INTO HOUSE
Boosters, collectives in NCAA’s crosshairs, but will new NIL policy be able to navigate choppy waters?

STATE NAME, IMAGE, AND LIKENESS LAWS

Navigating NIL Starts Here.

Talk to an Expert

The interim NCAA NIL policy requires institutions and athletes in states with passed NIL legislation to follow their state’s bill. 

If an institution is in a state without an NIL bill, then the institution is responsible for putting NIL guidelines in place for their athletes.

JUMP TO A STATE

ALABAMA

Name: HB 404

Passed: April 20, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2021

Notables:

  • Student-athletes could receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness at “market value”.
  • Student-athletes could hire an agent or attorney to represent them for the purposes of receiving NIL compensation.
  • Universities could not unreasonably restrict student-athletes from receiving NIL compensation or hiring an attorney or agent.
  • Universities could not compensate their own athletes for NIL.
  • NIL compensation could not be used as a recruiting inducement or a reward for participation or performance.
  • The bill would also set up an Alabama Collegiate Athletics Commission to make rules consistent with the bill, consult with experts on college athletics, and monitor compliance with the law.

Read More:

ARIZONA

Name: SB 1296: Collegiate athletics; compensation

Passed: March 26, 2021

Effective: July 23, 2021

Notables:

  • Prohibits collegiate athletes from entering into contracts that conflict with their team’s contract(s).
  • Includes agent licensing requirements.
  • Protects Collegiate athletes from being denied a scholarship or eligibility for their sport if they receive NIL-based compensation.
  • Prevents collegiate athletes from entering into contracts that conflict with another individual’s, or their institution’s, intellectual property rights.
  • No provision requiring collegiate athletes to disclose endorsement contracts.

Read More:

ARKANSAS

Name: AR HB 1671: Arkansas Student-Athlete Publicity Rights Act

Passed: April 21, 2021

Effective: January 1, 2022

Notables:

  • Athletes can’t promote themselves during practices, games, or other team activities. 
  • Contracts can’t conflict with the institution’s contracts or policies.
  • Athletes are permitted to hire representation but they must be licensed in Arkansas.
  • Athletes must disclose contract terms, conditions, parties, and compensation to a designated official of the university. 
  • Athletes are prohibited from endorsing adult entertainment, alcohol, casinos, drugs, or weapons. 

Read More:

CALIFORNIA

Name: SB 206: “Fair Pay to Play Act”

Passed: September 27. 2019

Effective: January 1, 2023

Notables:

  • The first state to legislate the right of collegiate athletes to earn compensation for their NIL.
  • Only applicable to athletes enrolled at 4-year institutions.
  • Forbids deals that undermine an institution’s existing endorsements.
  • There may be a supplement added to the original bill to ensure full protection of college athletes’ rights and also move up the effective date no later than January 1, 2022.

Read More:

COLORADO

  • Name: SB20-123: “Compensation and Representation of Student-Athletes”

    Passed: March 20, 2020

    Effective: January 1, 2023

    Notables:

    • Prevents any athletics association from developing legislation that restricts an athlete from monetizing their NIL.
    • An athlete can seek legal representation but it must be a licensed attorney.
    • Athletes may not enter into an agreement that conflicts with a team contract.
    • Athletes must disclose any signed agreements to the institution within 72 hours. 

    Read More:

FLORIDA

Name: SB646: Intercollegiate Athlete Compensation and Rights

Passed: July 12, 2020

Effective: July 1, 2021

Notables:

  • Compensation must not be based on athletic performance or attendance at a particular institution.
  • Athletes may not enter into an agreement if the terms conflict with the terms of the athlete’s program. If a conflict does occur, the institution is required to disclose the conflict to the athlete.
  • Any attorney representing an athlete must be in good standing with the Florida Bar.
  • Agreements can’t extend beyond the athlete’s eligibility.
  • Institutions are required to conduct financial literacy and life skills workshops that include financial aid, debt management, and budgeting.

Read More:

GEORGIA

Name: HB617: Postsecondary education; student-athletes may receive compensation for use of name, image, or likeness

Passed: May 6, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2021

Notables:

  • Institutions are permitted to “pool” up to 75% of an athlete’s NIL earnings to be distributed amongst all eligible athletes after graduation.
  • Contracts can’t conflict with the institution’s contracts or policies.
  • Colleges are required to conduct a five-hour financial literacy and life skills workshop at the beginning of student athletes’ first and third years.
  • Students would also be allowed to hire agents to negotiate on their behalf.

Read More:

KENTUCKY

Name: Passed via executive order

Passed: June 24, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2021

Notables:

  • Recommends (but doesn’t require) the institutions to provide financial literacy, social media & brand management, and time management education and resources for athletes. 
  • Permits institutions to create reasonable limitations on or promulgate reasonable rules pertaining to dates and times that an athlete can do their NIL work.
  • Permits institutions to nix opportunities that they deem incompatible or detrimental to the image, purpose, or stated mission of the institution. 

Read More:

MARYLAND

Name: Jordan McNair Safe and Fair Play Act (SB 439)

Passed: May 18, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2023

Notables:

  • The safety measures go into effect on July 1, 2021. However, the NIL provisions take effect on July 1, 2023.
  • Allows colleges to prohibit an athlete from engaging in in-person advertising for a third-party sponsor during official and mandatory team activities.
  • The act mandates that schools adopt guidelines to prevent, assess, and treat brain injury, heat illness, rhabdomyolysis, and other serious sports-related conditions. 

Read More:

MICHIGAN

Name: House Bill 5217 and 5218

Passed: December 30, 2020

Effective: December 31, 2022

Notables:

  • Athletes can enter endorsement deals, hire agents and attorneys, and accept gifts without risk of punishment.
  • No apparel contract that conflicts with the institutions.
  • Athletes must disclose the deal to the institution seven days prior to committing to the opportunity.
  • Restricts the use of the name and/or other intellectual property of the university in conjunction with the student-athletes use of their NIL.

Read More:

MISSISSIPPI

Name: Mississippi SB 2313: Mississippi Intercollegiate Athletics Compensation Rights Act

Passed: March 31, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2021

Notables:

  • Similar provisions to the laws of the six states that have already confirmed NIL rights.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
  • However, it allows a school to impose reasonable limitations on the dates and times a student-athlete may participate in any endorsement activities.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
  • Allows athletes to hire an agent but the athlete must give 7-day notice of their selection.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
  • Mandates disclosure of endorsement deals to their schools before the deals can become effective.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Read More:

MONTANA

Name: SB 248

Passed: April 30, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2023

Notables:

  • Applicable to both 2 year and 4 year institutions
  • An athlete can’t enter a contract that conflicts with team rules or terms of their institution’s contract.
  • Athletes must disclose contracts to a school official.

Read More:

NEBRASKA

Name: LB962: Nebraska Fair Pay to Play Act

Passed: February 25, 2020

Effective: On or before July 1, 2023

Notables:

  • Prevents an athletics association from taking away an athlete’s eligibility for monetizing their NIL.
  • Prevents an athletics association from penalizing an institution that permits athletes to exercise their NIL rights.
  • Athletes must disclose a detailed account of all deals to the institution.
  • Athletes aren’t permitted to enter contracts that require advertising during team activities and/or conflict with their team’s contracts.
  • Each institution in Nebraska is able to choose a date to apply the act’s regulations.

Read More:

NEVADA

Name: AB 254

Passed: May 29, 2021

Effective: January 1, 2022

Notables:

  • An institution may require athletes to receive education in contracts, financial literacy, or any other subject the institution deems necessary to prepare the athlete.
  • The Legislative Committee on Education will appoint a committee to conduct an interim study on the use of NIL.
  • Athletes must disclose contracts but no time frame is specified.

Read More:

NEW JERSEY

Name: Bill NJ S971: New Jersey Fair Play Act

Passed: September 14, 2020

Effective: 2024-2025 Academic Year

Notables:

  • Athletes can hire an agent to represent their NIL interests and it prevents an athlete from being declared ineligible from monetizing their NIL.
  • Forbids deals with adult entertainment products and services, alcohol, gambling, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, controlled “dangerous” substances, and weapons. Violations could result in an athlete losing their scholarship.
  • Forbids deals that conflict with a team contract.
  • A team contract is permitted to utilize their athletes’ NIL for advertising and marketing without additional compensation to the athlete.
  • Athletes required to disclose deals to the institution.

Read More:

NEW MEXICO

Name: SB 94: Student Athlete Endorsement Act

Passed: April 7, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2021

Notables:

  • No state university can take away a scholarship or punish in any way a college athlete for “receiving food, shelter, medical expenses or insurance from a third party or for earning compensation from the use of the athlete’s name, image, likeness or athletic reputation.”
  • Athletes can not endorse any product while playing their sport (i.e. during games) or use official team gear for endorsements they set up on their own.
  • The athletes are allowed legal representation for potential endorsement deals, but that doesn’t mean they can hire agents who may represent them for playing professionally.

Read More:

OKLAHOMA

Name: SB 48

Passed: May 28, 2021

Effective: No later than July 1, 2023

Notables:

  • Similar to Nebraska’s NIL bill, Oklahoma’s law allows schools to give athletes their NIL rights immediately.
  • Contracts must be disclosed to schools within 72 hours or before the athlete’s next athletic event, whichever occurs first.
  • Athletes can’t enter into contracts that have provisions that conflict with provisions in their team’s contact.

Read More:

SOUTH CAROLINA

Name: S685: Intercollegiate Athletes’ Compensation for Name, Image, and Likeness

Passed: May 6, 2021

Effective: May 2022

Notables:

  • May only be for third-party endorsements, the athlete’s non-athletic work product, or activities related to a business that the athlete owns
  • Such activities may not take place during the student’s academic, athletic, or team-mandated activities
  • Compensation may not be earned for the endorsement of tobacco, illegal substances or activities, banned athletic substances, or gambling

Read More:

TENNESSEE

Name: HB 1351

Passed: May 11, 2021

Effective: January 1, 2022

Notables:

  • Requires Tennessee colleges to conduct a financial literacy workshop for athletes new to the school.
  • Students are prohibited from endorsing gambling, alcohol, tobacco, or adult entertainment products.
  • Allows schools to prohibit the use of logos and other university trademarks in the endorsements,

Read More:

TEXAS

Name: SB 1385

Passed: June 14, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2021

Notables:

  • Athletes may not endorse alcohol, tobacco products, e-cigarettes, anabolic steroids, sports betting, casino gambling, a firearm that the athlete can’t legally purchase, or a sexually oriented business.
  • Requires athletes to attend a financial literacy workshop.

Read More:

CONNECTICUT

Name: HB 6402

Passed: June 30, 2021

Effective: September 1, 2021

Read More:

ILLINOIS

Name: SB 2338

Passed: June 29, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2021

Read More:

OHIO

Name: Executive Order 2021-10D

Passed: June 28, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2021

Read More:

OREGON

Name: SB 5

Passed: June 29, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2021

Read More:

PENNSYLVANIA

Name: SB 381

Passed: June 30, 2021

Effective: June 30, 2021

Read More:

LOUISIANA

Name: SB 60

Passed: July 1, 2021

Effective: July 1, 2021

Read More:

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
In The NewsLegislation NewsThe Lead Up to NIL

Senate NIL Hearing Raises More Questions than Answers

by michelle
NIL NETWORK INSIGHT

Recap: At the NIL senate hearing, all Senators agreed that collegiate athletes should have the right to monetize their NIL, that was about it. Some don’t think a federal NIL bill is necessary. On the other side of the spectrum, some think that a sweeping bill shouldn’t stop at NIL but include additional benefits such as health insurance. Somewhere in between you have the complexities of antitrust protections, compensation caps, and compliance reporting. The Senate will meet again next week to hear testimonies from collegiate athletes.

Observations: My biggest takeaway is that we seem to be far from a federal NIL bill. Given that 5+ states will have their NIL bills going into effect on July 1, the best solution for the NCAA is to pass reform at their June meetings to permit athletes to monetize their NIL in all 50 states. Even if states with NIL bills will have slightly different rules until a federal bill gets sorted out, it would be immensely better than the complications that would come out of NIL being permitted to some states and not in others.

WASHINGTON — At the conclusion of a hearing Wednesday on the issue of college athletes’ ability to make money from their name, image and likeness, Senate Commerce Committee chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., saluted the number of her colleagues who had participated during what became a three-hour session and said:

“You can see the determination. We’re determined to get this done. … I wish we weren’t having to deal with this. But we’re going to make sure this issue is addressed.”

The questions that remain unanswered are: When? What else — if anything — will Congress address, along with name, image and likeness? And how will the answer to the second question affect the answer to the first?

At present, the NCAA heavily restricts athletes’ ability to make money from their name, image and likeness. But seven states have passed laws that would allow this activity, beginning July 1. And while NCAA President Mark Emmert reiterated Wednesday his belief that the member schools will vote later this month to dramatically loosen their NIL rules well before the start of the 2021-22 school year, many state laws taking effect July 1 conflict with the NCAA’s proposed changes.

READ MORE

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Florida reinstates July 1 NIL legislation
In The NewsLegislation NewsThe Lead Up to NIL

Florida Reinstates July 1 NIL Date

by michelle
NIL NETWORK INSIGHT

Recap: It was a whirlwind 48 hours in Florida. First, an amendment was sneakily added to a charter school bill that, if signed by Governor DeSantis, would push back the NIL start date by a year (July 1, 2022). After an uproar from administrators, coaches and athletes, an amendment was introduced to revert back to the original July 1, 2021 date.

Observations: The explanation given for adding the original amendment was that the legislator wanted a written statement from the NCAA saying that they wouldn’t punish institutions, teams, and/or athletes for following the new state law. However, the NCAA has indicated that they have no intent to punish those who follow their state NIL laws. Another theory for the amendment is that the Florida lawmakers needed a diversion from their highly controversial anti-trans bill. They knew that pushing NIL back by a year would create controversy, essentially allowing them quietly pass the anti-trans legislation. And if that was their real intent, it worked, as the anti-trans bill hardly made headlines.

Florida lawmakers passed a bill Friday afternoon that reinstates July as the start date for allowing college athletes to make money from endorsements, reversing a brief push to delay the new opportunities by a year.

Politicians hurried to introduce an amended bill Friday on the final day of the state’s current legislative session. The new amendment, if signed by the Gov. Ron DeSantis as expected, will make sure that Florida is among the first states that open the door for college athletes to pursue opportunities to profit from their names, images and likenesses (NIL). The Sunshine State was first to push up the timeline for allowing these types of deals when it passed the original law last June.

Florida’s push to be at the forefront of NIL changes in colleges sport was in jeopardy earlier this week. The state senate passed an education bill Wednesday that was largely unrelated to athletics but included a last-minute, surprise amendment to delay the implementation of the law until July 2022.

“I was devastated. It was awful. We promised these kids something we could deliver,” said Rep. Chip LaMarca, who wrote the original name, image and likeness bill in Florida and pushed for Friday’s amendment. “I felt like we were letting these kids down. I was angry and determined to get it out back on.”

LaMarca said support from prominent coaches, athletes and athletic directors from the state’s biggest college teams who spoke out Thursday in strong and nearly universal opposition to a delay was an important factor in getting the initial date back.

“ThankYou to our state’s leadership for their continued support of our student-athletes and promoting necessary change for their name, image and likeness rights,” Florida State coach Mike Norvell tweeted Friday. “By listening and deciding to #KeepTheDate the state of Florida remains a leader in student-athlete empowerment.”

READ MORE ON ESPN

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
NCAA Endorses Rep Gonzalez and Rep Cleaver NIL Bill
In The NewsLegislation NewsNCAA UpdatesThe Lead Up to NIL

NCAA Endorses Rep Gonzalez and Rep Cleaver NIL Bill

by michelle
NIL NETWORK INSIGHT

Recap: Rep Gonzalez and Cleaver reintroduced their federal NIL bill and have support from both parties and the NCAA. 

Observations: For the NCAA, this bill grants them the anti-trust protections that they are so desperately seeking. The new proposal’s “rules of construction” state that none of the bill’s provisions can provide the basis for an antitrust lawsuit. 

Read more about the bill here.

“We value the bipartisan nature of U.S. Reps. Gonzalez and Cleaver to again collaborate across party lines and sponsor legislation to support student-athletes. Their House bill will strengthen the college athlete experience and support the NCAA and its members to modernize name, image and likeness rules but not pay student-athletes or turn them into employees of their college or university. Moreover, the Gonzalez-Cleaver legislation would create a legal and legislative framework to preserve and enhance the mission of college sports: that students can play the sport they love and earn a degree – often with a full scholarship and no debt – and set themselves up for a lifetime of success. We look forward to continuing to work with both lawmakers, their co-sponsors and other members of Congress on these important measures.”

LINK

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Bipartisan Federal NIL Bill Reintroduced
In The NewsLegislation NewsThe Lead Up to NIL

Bipartisan Federal NIL Bill Reintroduced

by michelle
NIL NETWORK INSIGHT

Recap: The bipartisan federal NIL bill by Rep Gonzalez and Cleaver is one of three NIL bills that was introduced during the Congressional session. However, it was the only one with multiple co-sponsors from each party. There are two amendments to their previous proposal:

1. If the NCAA, conference, or school prohibits athletes from deals with certain types of companies (ex tobacco, gambling), then they also could not have sponsorship deals within that category.

2. Athletes will be permitted to wear apparel in connection with an endorsement deal anywhere outside of an “athletic competition or an athletic-related university-sponsored event”.

Observations: With bipartisan support and an endorsement statement from the NCAA, this appears to be the bill that may be the foundation of NIL legislation. This bill, which NIL Network previously ranked middle of the road for athlete friendliness, will likely still have amendments over the next few months.

Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives are re-introducing a bipartisan bill on Monday regarding college athletes’ ability to make money from their name, image and likeness.

The measure from Reps. Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio, and Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., is largely similar to the version that they offered last September but was not acted upon before that Congressional session ended. However, according to a copy of the bill provided to USA TODAY Sports, there are changes that could benefit athletes more than their initial measure did.  

This becomes the third bill related to college sports and the issue of name, image and likeness (NIL) to be introduced during this Congressional session. But unlike bills from Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and from the tandem of Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., this one has support from multiple legislators from both parties. Three other Democrats and three other Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors.

“We thought that it’s time for us to put a stake in the ground so that we can begin to talk and negotiate on this issue,” Cleaver told USA TODAY Sports. “We obviously realize we’ve got to reconcile a House bill with a Senate bill. At this point, there’s no hostility. It’s not like the House version versus the Senate version. . . . All of us pretty much want the same thing. This is a civil rights issue and we want to set the athletes free — not unlike what Moses did.”

READ MORE

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
How the NCAA may Handle State NIL Laws
In The NewsLegislation NewsNCAA UpdatesThe Lead Up to NIL

How the NCAA may Handle State NIL Laws

by michelle
NIL NETWORK INSIGHT

Recap: Four states (Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, New Mexico)  have NIL laws that are going into effect on July 1 that would permit the collegiate athletes within that state to monetize their Name, Image, and Likeness. The NCAA has yet to make an official statement on how they’re planning to handle athletes having different rights in different states. This article discusses four scenarios:

  1. The NCAA could sue the states to prevent, or at least delay, the laws from going into effect.
  2. NIL laws go into effect on July 1, causing other states to ignore NCAA rules and recognize NIL.
  3. A federal NIL law is passed prior to July 1.
  4. The NCAA sufficiently modifies their NIL rules.

Observations: It doesn’t seem likely that scenario 1 will happen anymore because there are too many states involved with more likely to pass their NIL bill in the next two months for a July 1 effective date.

Scenario 2 seems probable, although it’s more likely that states would rush to pass and/or push up their own NIL bills rather than just ignoring NCAA rules.

With the reintroduction of a bi-partisan federal NIL bill recently, it is likely that scenario 3 may occur close to July 1, but doubtful that it will be passed before.

Scenario 4 doesn’t seem probable at this time. The NCAA indefinitely postponed their vote on NIL reform in January and NCAA President Emmert seems to be content waiting on Congress.

Regardless of how these scenarios play out, it’s likely to be a chaotic summer.

The college sports industry faces a looming and complicated legal crisis, with at least four states’ name, image and likeness statutes will go into effect on July 1.

Barring judicial or legislative intervention, Florida, Alabama, New Mexico and Mississippi will be the first to have active NIL laws on the books. Several other states’ governors have signed NIL statutes that will take effect later this year or at the beginning of 2022, while still other state legislatures are advancing NIL bills.

This evolving dynamic raises a number of questions that implicate the law.

Will the NCAA seek court injunctions to stop NIL statutes from taking effect? Will the NCAA announce its own NIL rules to govern schools across the country? Will Congress pass, and President Joe Biden sign, a federal NIL statute? Will colleges in non-NIL states, worried about recruiting advantages ceded to colleges in NIL states, defy their NCAA membership obligations and allow NIL? Will the NCAA sanction or threaten to expel member schools that act in defiance of contractual responsibilities? Will the NCAA simply do nothing and let the market play out?

The states’ NIL statutes are similar. In Florida, for example, college athletes at Florida colleges will be able to hire agents, sign endorsement deals, sponsor businesses and be paid to influence on social media. The statute also expressly forbids Florida colleges from adopting or enforcing rules that would interfere with athletes’ NIL rights. As a consequence, a Florida school that enforces NCAA amateurism rules with respect to athletes’ NIL rights would be breaking Florida law and subject to litigation.

The Florida statute features important restrictions. An athlete can’t enter into a contract that conflicts with a contract signed by his or her team. Compensation must also be “commensurate with the market value” of an athlete’s NIL, a qualification designed to limit opportunities for boosters to cloak “play-for-pay” compensation as NIL payments. To that end, NIL compensation can’t be paid in exchange for athletic performance or attendance at a college. Such payment can only be made by a third party unaffiliated with the college. Other states’ NIL statutes feature additional boundaries. Alabama’s NIL statute, for example, forbids endorsement deals for tobacco products, casinos and adult entertainment.

READ MORE ON SPORTICO

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Understand the differences between the six federal Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) legislation that has been proposed.
Legislation NewsNavigate NILNIL Network InsightsThe Lead Up to NILUnderstanding the NIL Industry

Understanding the Federal NIL Bills

by michelle

Federal Name, Image, and Likeness Proposals

The NCAA NIL proposal was tabled due to potential antitrust violations so various Senators and Representatives have developed Name, Image, and Likeness legislation to help guide this new space. It is unlikely that any of these will be passed as is, but potentially one will be revised and/or a new bill will be proposed that incorporates aspects of each. 

Student-Athlete Equity Act

What I Like: This is by far the shortest and simplest bill – essentially adding 34 words to the IRS Code of 1986 on the definition of a qualified amateur sports organization. This would force the NCAA and the institutions to allow athletes to monetize their NIL or risk losing their tax-exempt status. I like that it doesn’t set a precedent for the federal government determining how non-profits run their businesses while still giving new opportunities to the athletes.

What I Don’t Like: While the NCAA would have to act, it leaves the changes 100% in their hands. When the NCAA released their first NIL proposal, it included restrictions that flagged some potential antitrust violations. Also, the verbiage used is a bit vague: “substantially” and “reasonably” leave a lot of room for interpretation by the NCAA.

The Unknowns: How would this change affect amateur sports organizations outside of collegiate athletics?

Read More:

Fairness in Collegiate Athletics Act

What I Like: Rubio’s time frame requires the NCAA to change their NIL rules by June 30, 2021 putting it in advance of Florida’s state bill becoming law on July 1. This would ease the complications of institutions in different states having different rules for their athletes.
What I Don’t Like: This bill gives a lot of power to the NCAA and the institutions to control what types of deals an athlete can do and on top of that, gives the NCAA immunity from future lawsuits surrounding their legislative changes. This leaves the door open for the NCAA to continue to take advantage of student athletes without risk of repercussions.
The Unknowns: Who is responsible for determining Fair Value Contracts? This bill states that collegiate athletes must report their contracts to their school and the NCAA to ensure that they are appropriate, but doesn’t specify how “fair value” would be interpreted and by whom. 

Read More:

Student-Athlete Level Playing Field Act

What I Like: This bill includes the most discussion around boosters and keeping them out of NIL deals, even going so far as to make it unlawful, with the booster subjected to civil penalties. The issue of boosters using NIL deals as a recruiting enticement is one of the biggest issues that the NCAA is worried about.
What I Don’t Like: While I like the outline of the “Covered Athletic Organization Commission”, I think it needs to be a permanent commission, with potential to amend or renew their responsibilities after every year. Additionally, I think it would be beneficial to require the universities to report their athletes’ NIL deals to this commission so that they can fully understand the space and how it develops.
The Unknowns: Although this bill clearly prohibits boosters from paying collegiate athletes for their NIL, it’s lacking a requirement for reporting of endorsements. How would “Fair Value Contracts” and no booster activity be enforced?

Read More:

College Athlete Bill of Rights

What I Like: Booker’s bill includes a plethora of additional benefits to student-athletes outside of their NIL rights. My favorite pieces are guaranteeing a scholarship for a student-athlete until they finish their undergraduate degree, requiring academic course offerings that relate to financial literacy, and setting up a medical trust fund for athletes to access up to five years after they exhaust their eligibility. Also, specifically allowing “group licensing” means EA Sports NCAA Football may return with collegiate football athletes finally getting compensated for the use of their NIL!

What I Don’t Like: While I support everything in this bill, it will cause a major disruption in the NCAA and potentially have dozens of unintended consequences. I think that this will also put a huge strain on athletic departments, and compliance specifically, to adhere to the new rules in the first years. Would a “rolling out” of these rules help alleviate that strain? 

The Unknowns: If the revenue share aspect of the bill passes, how will this affect athletic departments who are using their profits to support other sports in the school? Will we see non-revenue generating sports being cut because of lack of funding? Although the bill specifies that a school can’t cut a team “unless all other options for reducing the expenses of the athletic program, including reducing coach salaries and administrative and facility expenses, are not feasible”, I’m worried.

Read More:

Collegiate Athlete and Compensatory Rights Act

What I Like: Wicker’s bill says that institutions “shall provide educational resources to student-athletes with respect to earning covered compensation for the use of the name, image, or likeness of the student-athlete.” While “shall” doesn’t necessarily mean “require”, I think that educating athletes is going to be crucial to a smooth roll-out of NIL law changes.
What I Don’t Like: This bill restricts athletes from monetizing their NIL until they’ve completed 12% of the credits required for graduation. This seems like an unnecessary stipulation and delay to an athlete being able to monetize their NIL. Also, it permits an institution to put limits on how much time athletes spend on NIL deals. Again, this seems unnecessary – if an athlete is attending all athletic and academic requirements, why should a university care how they spend their free time? 

The Unknowns: While the bill prohibits schools from “unduly restricting” athlete’s deals, it also permits schools to nix NIL deals with brands that are “inconsistent with the values of the institution.” Would the school have to publicly declare these “values” or would they be taken on a case by case basis? Requiring public transparency around this may be important in the recruiting process for an athlete.

Read More:

College Athlete Economic Freedom Act

What I Like: This is the most athlete-friendly bill and doesn’t put restrictions around how an athlete goes about monetizing their NIL, including group representation and licensing. I also like that it requires that any institutional support to learn how to market their NIL be provided for all athletes, regardless of race, gender, or sport. We’ve already seen some universities only providing NIL education for their profit-generating sports, which, while economical, is not equitable to all athletes.
What I Don’t Like: While I agree that high school athletes should be able to monetize their NIL just as other high school students can, I think including them in an initial bill before fully understanding the landscape and unintended consequences might be a bad idea. I would support including high school students in time after research has been done at the collegiate level.
The Unknowns: This is the only bill that includes Prospective Student-Athletes (PSAs) in their proposal. At what age would a PSA start getting approached by brands? How will junior athletes be protected from boosters and/or “super” fans from incentivizing recruits to attend their college?

Read More:

Which bill is your favorite? Do you think more federal NIL bills will be proposed? What other criteria do you wish were addressed in a NIL bill? Comment below!

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and all posted blog articles are my opinions and do not provide legal advice.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
NCAA, Power Five Conferences Play Defense
In The NewsLegislation NewsThe Lead Up to NIL

NCAA, Power Five Conferences Play Defense

by michelle

FILE – In this Feb. 11, 2020, file photo, a panel of witnesses, from left, Big 12 Conference Commissioner Bob Bowlsby, National Collegiate Athletic Association President Mark Emmert, University of Kansas Chancellor Dr. Douglas Girod, National College Players Association Executive Director Ramogi Huma and National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete Advisory Committee Chair Kendall Spencer, listen during a Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing on intercollegiate athlete… Susan Walsh

NIL NETWORK INSIGHT

Recap: This article discusses shift to Democratic control in both Congress and the White house and the repercussions for NIL legislation. In 2020, the NCAA and Power Five conferences were hopeful for federal legislation that would be in favor of the NCAA,  including limitations on athlete endorsements and antitrust protections. However, now that the federal government is more left leaning, any legislation that passes is likely to be more athlete-friendly, and potentially even extend beyond NIL to include health insurance and profit sharing for revenue generating sports. 

Observations: I imagine that the NCAA is upset that they dragged their feet for so long after California Governor Newsom passed the first state legislation regarding NIL in the fall of 2019. The new Democratically controlled Senate will not be as friendly to the NCAA and Power 5 Conferences. 

With states proposing and passing NIL bills right and left, and Florida’s set to go into effect on July 1, the need for intervention at the federal level is necessary to provide congruence and fairness across the country. 

By BEN NUCKOLS

Associated Press

The NCAA, the Power Five conferences and their $2 million platoon of lobbyists had a pretty good year on Capitol Hill in 2020. With Republicans controlling the Senate, the power brokers in college sports were on track to secure a way for athletes nationwide to earn money from endorsements while otherwise maintaining the status quo of amateurism.

Now that Democrats control Congress and the White House, 2021 is shaping up to be a much bigger challenge for those who don’t want major changes in college sports.

The bills now best positioned to advance would guarantee health care for college athletes and some form of revenue sharing, which critics describe as “pay for play.” Democrats pushing such legislation aren’t just motivated by giving athletes access to the free market through name, image and likeness (NIL) rights — a modest reform that has the full support of the NCAA and the Power Five.

Instead, some Democrats see college sports reform as a racial and economic justice issue and are seeking to correct a system they consider exploitative of minorities.

“I think the Power Five and NCAA proposals are dead in the water. They went to Congress and they lost,” said Ramogi Huma, executive director of the National College Players Association. “At this point, all they can do is play defense, which is what we were doing at first. Now we’re playing offense.”

That defensive posture for the Power Five comes after the conferences — the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12 — collectively spent $1,730,000 to lobby Congress in 2020 — by far the most they have spent in a year, according to lobbying disclosures reviewed by The Associated Press.

The NCAA, despite calling off its lucrative basketball tournaments last March, spent $480,000 on lobbying, roughly in line with its budget in past years, for a total of $2,210,000 paid to lobbyists with similar aims.

Each Power Five conference hired its own lobbying firm and they collectively hired the same two firms — one Republican and one Democratic — as part of their push for a narrow bill giving athletes NIL rights, with numerous restrictions. The Southeastern Conference had the biggest lobbying budget of any league and even outspent the NCAA, paying its lobbyists $570,000.

The lobbyists got most of their wish list into a bill introduced last month by Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., but with Wicker no longer the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, it’s unlikely his bill would advance if it were reintroduced in the new Congress.

“The body politic has shifted left, there’s no question about it, and that’s toward more student-athlete empowerment,” said Tom McMillen, a former Democratic congressman from Maryland who now represents Division I athletic directors as executive director of the LEAD1 Association.

READ MORE

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Mississippi Proposes a Name, Image, and Likeness bill
In The NewsLegislation NewsThe Lead Up to NIL

Mississippi Proposes a Name, Image, and Likeness bill

by michelle

Mississippi State guard/forward Cameron Matthews (4) works the ball downcourt against Alabama during the first half of an NCAA college basketball game, Saturday, Jan. 23, 2021, in Tuscaloosa, Ala. (AP Photo/Vasha Hunt) VASHA HUNT AP

NIL NETWORK INSIGHT

Recap: Mississippi joins Florida, California, and other states to propose legislation around collegiate athlete’s use of their NIL for profit. The bill is supported by all eight of the public universities in Mississippi and Senate Universities and College Committee Chairman Scott Bounds stated that “we need to stay ahead of the curve on our out-of-state universities” in regards to recruiting potential student-athletes.

Observations: States are recognizing the enormous recruiting advantages that institutions in places with NIL legislation will have until a federal bill overrides them. Even if the various state bills don’t end up going into effect, the unknowns at the federal level may drive elite athletes to states that already have, or will have NIL legislation in place by the time they arrive on campus. 

BY EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS ASSOCIATED PRESS

College athletes in Mississippi would be able to earn money from their own name, image or likeness, under a bill that cleared a state House committee Wednesday.

Senate Universities and Colleges Committee Chairman Scott Bounds said all eight of Mississippi’s public universities support the proposal, as does the governing board for the schools.

As Mississippi universities recruit athletes, “we need to be able to stay ahead of the curve on our out-of-state universities,” Bounds said.

READ MORE

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Do Community College Athletes Deserve Compensation?
In The NewsLegislation NewsOpinionThe Lead Up to NIL

Do Community College Athletes Deserve Compensation?

by michelle

Recap: California Governor Gavin Newson set aside $700,000 to create a working group to study the issues of California community college athletes being able to monetize their name, image, and likeness. While most are in favor, the same questions about unintended consequences and regulations also come up in the city college space. 

Observations: No matter what level of collegiate athletics, compliance is going to be busy in the first few years of NIL legislation. City college athletic departments generally have significantly less resources to dedicate to regulations. I think it would be advantageous for city colleges to hold on their NIL legislation until the dust settles within the NCAA and they can utilize lessons learned. 

There isn’t a timeline for Newsom’s working group but I’d imagine a bill like the one he signed in 2019, “The Fair Pay to Play Act” wouldn’t be put into effect until at least 2023.

By Alexandra Tagliamonte and Moses Musallam – Special to the Citizen
Jan 22, 2021

Should California let community college athletes receive compensation for their name, likeness and image? California Gov. Gavin Newsom has set aside $700,000 in his proposed budget to create a working group to study the issue, which could affect athletes in Elk Grove and across the Sacramento area.

Last year, Newsom signed Senate Bill 206, The Fair Pay to Play Act, authored by Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, allowing student athletes at four-year colleges to receive compensation for their name, likeness and image. This new law would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2023.

In response to SB 206, the NCAA threatened to expel California schools from competing in any playoffs. They asserted that the compensation would give an “unfair advantage in recruiting.”

Newsom is now turning his attention to community college athletes. The mission of the working group is to submit a report containing the findings and policy recommendations on compensation for community college athletes.

Local community college and high school coaches expressed conflicting perspectives on the idea.

READ MORE

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts
Close