Amidst the political, economic, and social commotions caused by the pandemic, long-awaited rulings have been implemented into the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). In recent years several state legislatures have continuously challenged the NCAA’s stringent measures disallowing athletes to profit from their public image. States such as Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and notably California since the start of 2017 have contributed to this. In late June, they finally submitted to these legal pressures and NCAA president, Mark Emmert, announced, effective July 1st all NCAA athletes would be allowed to monetize their name, image, and likeness (NIL). He added that this may be achieved through endorsement deals, social media promotions, selling their autographs, etc. 

The Legal Side 

The defining factor in the NCAA’s decision allowing athletes to profit off their NIL was when the Supreme Court ruled against their previous restrictions as “an illegal restraint of trade” (JDSupra). But this is where things start to get complicated. Due to many state’s conflicting laws across the US, no definite NIL policy can currently be established by the NCAA. However, an interim policy has been in effect since July 2021 and will remain so until a federal law is passed. This is because certain states have very strict NIL laws which prohibit athletes from signing deals with companies, while others do allow them to. Therefore, to avoid possible lawsuits from states that believe the NIL policy will infringe upon their laws, the collegiate association will not establish anything permanent until further notice. Unfortunately, clarity between the legislatures are ill-defined at the moment and no further legal advancements have been made since. Students will still be allowed to sign endorsement deals during this period of obscurity if their state allows them to, it is  just a more complicated process (for now). 

Restrictions 

Student-athletes will be allowed a professional agent or advisor to help prompt their NIL revenue. However, the NCAA will prohibit the player’s NIL compensation to be modified under any factor of the athlete’s game performance (i.e., scoring a touchdown and being paid a 5% bonus).  In addition to this, players will not be allowed to make deals with smoking or vaping companies as well as adult movie industries: this was done to protect the University’s professional and academic image. A clear distinction has been drawn between sports and business and the NCAA does not want this to become unclear to their student-athletes.

Is this change good or bad for the NCAA?

Unsurprisingly, there is much debate over the effects of the NIL policy on collegiate athletes. Critics contest these “positive” changes declaring that players may begin to spend more time with their advisors than teammates off the field. More importantly, many have questioned whether money lust will override their team priorities and diminish the love for their respective sport? Money or passion, it will ultimately be the athlete’s decision. Nonetheless, the NCAA’s NIL policy has chartered new gateways of possibility for all collegiate athletes to gain exposure and money while still focusing on academics and their sport.