Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

NIL Regulation: Can the NCAA Recover and Advance Its Own Fumble?

By Howard Mulligan
May 01, 2024

The convergence of myriad factors, including conference realignment, a seamless transfer portal and rule changes permitting athletes to profit from usage of their name, image and likeness (NIL) have dramatically transformed the landscape of collegiate sports. However, as tectonic as the ructions resulting from conference realignment and the transfer portal have been, no other development has engendered as much confusion and angst as the rapid evolution of NIL.

With a view toward injecting some modicum of clarity into the volatile arena of NIL, a plethora of legislation has been enacted at the state level and proposed at the federal level. For the past three years, in the wake of all this turbulence, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), had been for the most part a spectator in the bleachers. But in the past few months it appears the NCAA may have begun to buckle its chinstrap.

Since the inception of the NCAA, other than scholarships and stingy board and meal allowances, athletes representing participating member institutions have been precluded from legally receiving any compensation. At least since about 1910, the NCAA has been the primary regulator of college athletics. Since the late 1970's when vast amounts of money first began to be infused into college athletics, the NCAA has stubbornly refused to address the inequity of student-athletes being barred from receiving compensation. The injustice of this "amateur" status has been highlighted as coaches, athletic directors, college administrations and endowment funds, advertising agencies, online gaming platforms, video-game producers, television networks and apparel companies, have reaped massive revenue. The billions of dollars generated by the advent of the Bowl Championship Series (and financial projections relating to its imminent expansion) have only exacerbated this perceived inequity.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?