Tag:NCAA
Own Thyself: IP and competition issues in Name Image and Likeness claims
Name. Image. Likeness. Three words which, when taken together, evoke increasingly complex meanings. Recently, a number of high profile cases have spotlighted the growing concerns over the meaning and implications of “self” ownership, a concept traditionally lying at the intersection of intellectual property and tort law, connections to privacy law, as well recently implicated issues of antitrust-competition and emerging technology (i.e. AI) regulation.
In an ever-evolving and interconnected technological landscape, issues of Name Image and Likeness (NIL) reveal broad and far reaching implications for today’s courts and regulators. From the scope of traditionally limited contracts to licensing to perpetual ownership and indefinite use, state regulation and limited judicial decisions may finally prove insufficient for the task at hand. However, new applications combined with time-tested legal tools may help even the playing field, both by protecting competition and preventing exploitation.
Recent cases in the sports and entertainment industries (NCAA and SAAG-AFTRA) validate the importance of modern-regulation as a supplement to less-than-binding jurisprudence. While U.S. federal agencies have expressed interest and states have individually taken important steps toward governing NIL controversies, countries like England, France, Spain, Italy and Germany offer clear, robust protections, benefits which U.S. lawmakers and regulators should carefully consider.
Returning to the Roots of College Sports: Pathways Forward
College sports once featured iconic teams of students that would return year after year to compete for glory in tournaments like March Madness and the College Football Playoff. Now, teams are sparsely populated with returning players. Prior to the start of the 2025 March Madness tournament, more than half of the players that competed in the tournament played for a different D1 team before the start of the season. Following the advent of NIL (“Name, Image, and Likeness”), and recent rule changes surrounding the transfer portal, college sports are more like a professional, free-agent market. Team loyalty and the once classic “underdog” Cinderella stories are a thing of the past.
The NCAA’s Gamble on Sports Betting Tech
March Madness is among the most anticipated sporting events of the year, with millions of viewers and billions of dollars in wagers making it one of the busiest times for college sports betting. However, rapid expansion of legalized sports betting across the U.S. has introduced significant regulatory challenges for the NCAA, colleges, and the compliance community. With an estimated $31 billion wagered in the 2025 tournament alone, ensuring conformity with NCAA sports betting regulations has become increasingly complex. To address these challenges, the NCAA has turned to advanced compliance technology, like Prohibet and Integrity Compliance (IC360), to monitor and enforce wagering restrictions.
The New Salary Cap in College Sports: How it Will Work, Why it is Needed, and the Arguments Against It
The overall dynamics of the college sports world has gone through some significant changes over the last few years due to the rise of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), which allows student-athletes to earn payment for sponsorship deals. While this change to the college sports landscape is fairly widely praised, it has raised some significant debate about keeping a competitive balance in the world of college sports, and overall fairness to schools that cannot compete with the vast offers of other programs. This landscape may require a salary cap to alleviate the fairness concerns that arise.
Should Private Equity Be Involved in Collegiate Sports?
In October 2024, a judge gave preliminary approval of a settlement over a multibillion-dollar class action lawsuit involving former collegiate athletes being denied compensation, House v. NCAA. One of the settlement conditions will be that universities can now pay players directly. Teams must now decide whether to pay players directly or rely on NIL compensation to remain competitive in recruiting top talent. This demand for players has made some speculate that conferences and their member universities will turn to private equity to help fund these teams.
The ACC’s Anti-Competition Contracts: Why Schools Continue to Fight the Conference’s Exit Regulations
In December 2023, Florida State University’s Board of Trustees filed suit against the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) challenging the ACC’s grant of rights and “draconian” exit penalties. About three months later in March 2024, Clemson University filed a complaint against the conference challenging those same exit penalties and grant of rights issues. In response, the ACC filed legal challenges against both schools, arguing they agreed to the contract terms and were not allowed to leave the conference or challenge those agreements. Courts will have to look to the ACC’s grant of rights agreement, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and State antitrust laws in determining who will succeed in this lawsuit. Several other schools have gotten around their conference’s grant of rights agreements in the Big 10, and Pac-12. However, unlike those conferences’ grants of rights agreements expiring in 2024 and 2025, the ACC’s agreement lasts until June 2036. Regardless, it is going to be difficult for these schools to succeed in challenging the agreements in court.
Congress Needs to Pass a Nationwide NIL Law
Matthew Sluka, starting quarterback for the then-undefeated University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) football team, elected to use his redshirt designation and sit out for the rest of the 2024-25 football season, claiming that he was not paid the entirety of the $100,000 NIL deal he was recruited on. Sluka is now the first player to sit out in-season because of NIL disputes. However, it is very likely he will not be the last. Sluka claims that he was promised the $100,000 by the offensive coordinator. The school and team dispute the claims by Sluka, saying they had never promised him any money and the $3,000 he had received was for honoring a separate NIL engagement that summer. UNLV is claiming that Sluka and his representation’s financial demands to keep playing are against NCAA rules and Nevada state law. NCAA rules and Nevada law stipulate that a player cannot receive NIL just to play for or attend a school, there must be quid pro quo, (sign autographs, meet and greets, etc.) in order to profit from their name, image or likeness. Regardless of the underlying truth, Sluka’s situation has highlighted exactly why the NCAA cannot regulate NIL anymore.
Does College Athletics Need a New Regulatory Body?
In 2021, the Supreme Court decided N.C.A.A. v Alston. This struck down the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) previous prohibition on collegiate athletes earning money on their own Name Image and Likeness (NIL). There is now debate as to what the regulations around NIL should be and who should be making them. The NCAA is currently under fire for their lack of regulations on Name Image and Likeness (NIL) deals for collegiate athletes. Historically, outside of a scholarship, an athlete could receive no compensation for their athletic ability or participation in collegiate athletics.Patrick Chomczyk, a previous editor, wrote a blog in Sept. of 2021, after the Supreme Court Decision of N.C.A.A. v. Alston. He predicted that the NCAA would implement its own rules that comply with the Supreme Court ruling and Federal legislation could follow. In the wake of Alston, the NCAA has only instituted a few rules, all centered around keeping the concept of amateurism alive. Amateurism is the current model of college sports where student athletes are not to receive compensation for their athletic activities. This concept has been repeatedly challenged in recent years.
How Removing Cannabinoids from the NCAA Banned Substances List Benefits the Organization and the Players
As marijuana use has been legalized in some capacity in a majority of states, there remains a notable population who is still banned from its use: student athletes. However, recent recommendations to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) means that change could be on the horizon for collegiate athletes. Earlier this summer, the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports (CSMAS) signaled its support for removing cannabis from the banned substance list and drug-testing protocols for student athletes. On September 22, 2023 the committee officially recommended that all three NCAA divisional bodies adopt legislation to remove cannabinoids from the banned drug classes. The recommendation was based upon the conclusion at the Summit on Cannabinoids in College Athletics hosted by the NCAA last December. They concluded that cannabinoids are not considered to be performance-enhancing, and the current policy was found to be ineffective at prohibiting use, and better implemented by individual schools.
Protecting the Sport or Protecting the Person: Why NIL Deals for College Athletes Need Federal Regulation
Mayhem has ensued in the world of college sports since July 1, 2021, when college athletes could first benefit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) based on an interim policy passed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Chaos emerged after a number of states adopted policies regarding athlete’s name, image, and likeness. This forced the NCAA to pass a policy allowing such deals across the board, while stating in their release that the organization would continue to work with Congress to create a solution on the national level. However, two years later, no such solution has come to fruition, and in that time, states that have a large investment in the success of their college sports have been able to create or edit their legislation to benefit the performance of their teams.