The NCAA’s New NIL Policy 2023: Rules Explained

The NCAA authorised and made public new clarifications to its Name Image Likeness (NIL) Policy on October 26, 2022. The NCAA published updated advice in May 2022 and released two Q&As in November 2021 and July 2022 following the first release of the NIL Policy on July 1, 2021, allowing student-athletes to earn compensation for NIL use.

In 2022, we saw the value of NIL deals grow to higher-than-ever levels, while states, the federal government, and the NCAA continued to work out new guidance and potential new laws to govern the publicity rights of student-athletes.

Some of those laws went into effect as of January 1, 2023. States with new NIL laws include Colorado, Delaware, Michigan (effective December 31, 2022), and New York. Other states, like Montana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma are expected to see new NIL laws go into effect later in 2023.

State Laws-

Colorado’s law upholds student-athlete’s rights to compensation for use of their NIL, but it still seems to give the NCAA the authority to control how those rights are used by student-athletes. NIL privileges may not be subject to any additional restrictions outside those set forth by the NCAA at Colorado universities.

The new regulation in Delaware regulates people who want to represent student-athletes at Delaware institutions. The law, which is not primarily focused on student-athletes rights to compensation for use of their NIL, instead significantly regulates how individuals become agents to athletes and must carry out their duties, going so far as to (among other things) specify specific information that potential agents must provide to the Delaware Secretary of State as well as warning language that must be included in any documents that an agent may use to represent an athlete.

The new law in Michigan preserves student-athlete’s NIL privileges, comparable to the law in Colorado. However, the Michigan Act does not seem to restrict NIL privileges in accordance with NCAA rules and regulations, and in that regard, it may be viewed as more advantageous for student-athletes, groups, and institutions.

The new statute in New York is comparable to that in Michigan and also seems to show little regard for the NCAA. The law in New York has a special distinction, though: it mandates that all Division I college athletic programmes provide a “student-athlete assistance programme,” which may include a “financial distress fund” from which student-athletes can receive payments from their school in “times of financial need.” Although it is unclear what constitutes a “financial need,” the statute does not appear to prevent NIL payments from sponsors alongside payments directly from schools from their “financial distress funds.”

When did the NIL begin?

Student-athletes are now able to commercialise their NIL thanks to the NCAA’s authorised name, image, and likeness policy, which took effect on July 1, 2021. However, neither explicit NCAA NIL regulations nor federal legislation have been enacted. Student-athletes should be aware that NIL activities and regulations differ from state to state and school to school before signing any NIL agreements because of this.

Since 1869, college football has only been played by amateurs. Officially, it still is, but for the first time, players are now able to legally put some money in their pockets while they are on the pitch.

State laws and NCAA amendments have eliminated the restrictions that prevented NCAA athletes from making money in business endeavours without losing their eligibility.

Players can now monetize the rights to their name, likeness, and image. For the most well-known athletes, it has already been a potential bonanza, but it also raises some issues with enforcement.

What do the terms “name, likeness, and image” mean? What does the publicity right entail?

The three components of “right of publicity,” a legal notion used to forbid or permit the use of an individual to market a good or service, are name, image, and likeness (or NIL). For instance, if a picture of an athlete wearing an athletic brand is taken, and that brand uses the picture to advertise their wares without getting the athlete’s permission, the athlete may claim that the brand violated their right to publicity.

The right of publicity is typically utilised as a safeguard against the improper use of a person’s name, likeness, and image for promotional purposes. However, the NCAA has been under scrutiny for years because, according to critics, it takes advantage of student-athletes by using their name, image and likeness for profit, while not allowing the athletes to cash in, as well.

With the NCAA changing the existing NIL rules to begin allowing athletes the right to profit from the use of their own name, image and likeness, here are a few examples of what student-athletes could now be paid for:

  • Their autograph
  • Developing and/or modelling athletic and non-athletic clothing apparel
  • Promoting products and services
  • Making personal appearances
  • appearing in ad campaigns
  • selling ads on their social accounts
  • selling merchandise
  • starting their own sports camps
  • starting their own businesses
  • selling signed memorabilia
  • making paid appearances
  • delivering speeches for money
  • arranging autograph signings

Previous NCAA NIL Compensation Restrictions

The NCAA changed the Power Five’s legislative procedure on August 7, 2014, allowing those five leagues to collectively pass legislation in a variety of areas, including restrictions on grants-in-aid. The Power Five quickly decided to raise the overall restriction on grants-in-aid from the level that was in existence at the time to a higher cap depending on the cost of attendance at each school in January 2015. It went into effect on August 1st, 2015. “Tuition and fees, housing and board, books and other expenditures associated to attendance at the institution up to the cost of attendance[.]” are included in the updated definition of “full grant-in-aid.” The Power Five also increased the range of previously acceptable benefits or remuneration for student-athletes and added additional types of acceptable compensation.

These adjustments expanded the reimbursement or payment of travel expenses for specific family members to attend certain events, provided unlimited food, and mandated that schools cover medical care for athletics-related injuries for at least two years after graduation. Student-athletes were also allowed to borrow against their future professional earnings to purchase loss-of-value insurance.

Although the legislative actions taken by the Power Five increased the amount of money paid to student-athletes, these increases were still constrained by general NCAA restrictions that forbid the Power Five and all other NCAA members from raising the amount of money paid to student-athletes above a threshold decided by the NCAA through its traditional rulemaking process.

https://twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1621146552252370948?s=20&t=rY0tnNc-ZUfQZ2C0Ltg9uQ

NCAA v. Alston- Gave Clarifications

In the case of NCAA v. Alston, the Supreme Court decided in June 2021 that the NCAA had no right to restrict any payments to students for educational purposes.

The NCAA then deferred to the states, which established their own NIL regulations. In states where laws weren’t passed, schools modified their own regulations.

The NCAA still forbids two things: 1) paying players, and 2) engaging in a quid pro quo.

Players are not authorised to receive pay based on performance, and recruits are not allowed to sign NIL deals that are related to attending a specific university.

As usual, some players and colleges advanced the situation and cashed in first, while others did not and lagged behind.

Following was a flurry of endorsements, including local and shoe partnerships, local business deals, car dealer partnerships, players signing with agents, paid social posts, etc.

Are universities and colleges creating their own NIL regulations?

Yes, each individual institution has control over NIL deals and the authority to reject a deal if it infringes on previously agreed-upon terms. Some colleges are using organisations like Opendorse and INFLCR, which provide a platform for athletes to upload their NIL contracts for the compliance department to evaluate and authorise, to help manage this process.

Athletes are expected to be aware of their school’s NIL policy and to tell them of any NIL plans. Working together with coaches and the compliance office is the best approach to make sure student-athletes are aware of institution-specific NIL policies.

The Interim NIL Policy

The NCAA developed an interim NIL policy, beginning July 1, 2021, to promote student-athlete utilisation of NIL in response to Alston and properly passed state NIL statutes. “NCAA Bylaws, including the bans on pay-for-play and illegal recruiting inducements, remain in effect, subject to the following:

  • Applying Bylaw 12 to institutions in states without NIL laws or executive actions or in states with NIL laws or executive actions that have not yet gone into effect will not affect a person’s eligibility for intercollegiate athletics if they choose to participate in NIL activities (Amateurism and Athletics Eligibility).
  • Application of the NCAA Bylaws will not affect an individual’s eligibility for and/or the membership institution’s full participation in NCAA athletics if they choose to engage in a NIL activity that is protected by law or executive order for institutions in states with NIL laws or executive orders with the force of law, unless the state law is declared invalid or unenforceable by operation of law.

Additionally, the NCAA additional guidance related to the NIL interim policy in May 2022, stating that institutional coaches and staff may not organize, facilitate or arrange a meeting between a booster/NIL entity and a prospective student-athlete or communicate directly or indirectly with a prospective student-athlete on behalf of a booster/NIL entity.

October 2022 Clarifications

The NCAA amended its guidance on the interim NIL policy on October 26, 2022, to provide more details about its positions and policies. The guidance from October 2022 aimed to control NIL collectives (the “collective”), where boosters pooled money to support student-athletes (SAs). The October 2022 guidance also attempted to place more restrictions on university involvement in NIL activities. The NCAA also came to the conclusion that the following actions were not permitted by institutions:

  • Communicating with collectives regarding specific SA requests/demand for compensation (e.g., SA needs X dollars in NIL money) or encouragement for collectives to fulfil SA’s request.
  • Proactively assist in the development/creation, execution or implementation of a SA’s NIL activity (e.g., develop a product, develop promotional materials, ensure SA performance of contractual NIL activities) unless the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students.
  •  Providing services (other than education) to support NIL activity (e.g., graphics design, tax preparation, contract review, etc.) unless the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students.
  •  Providing access to equipment to support NIL activity (e.g., cameras, graphics software, computers, etc.) unless the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students.
  •  Provide assets (e.g., tickets, suite) to a donor as an incentive for providing funds to the NIL entity.
  • Having Athletics department staff members employed by the NIL entity.
  • Having an individual or entity acting on behalf of the athletics department (e.g., third-party rights holders, third-party agents) representing enrolled SAs for NIL deals, including securing and negotiating deals on behalf of the SA.

The NCAA also prohibited athletes from performing the following activities:

  • Receiving compensation directly or indirectly for promoting an athletics competition in which they participate
  • Receiving compensation from a school coach to promote the coach’s camp
  • Having Athletics department staff members employed by the NIL entity.
  • Communicating with collectives regarding specific SA requests/demand for compensation (e.g., SA needs X dollars in NIL money) or encouragement for collectives to fulfil SA’s request.

Enforcement of NIL Policies

For any infractions happening prior to the clarification on 10/26/2022, the NCAA instructed enforcement officials to only pursue instances that are obviously in violation of the interim rules. In terms of the enforcement standard, there is a presumption of violation when material presented to the NCAA indicates that a violation occurred unless the school can prove that the suspicious actions met with NCAA rules and NIL policy. Colleges and institutions should seriously think about enhancing compliance processes and training and monitoring resources accessible to student-athletes, staff personnel, and NIL entities with a presumption of guilt in the case of a violation.

What’s next for NIL?

The organisation declared that it views NIL collectives as boosters, making them subject to NCAA regulations that forbid them from participating in the recruiting process.

Therefore, the NCAA is searching for wrongdoers. However, with some very serious caution: if the organisation seeks to penalise any school for providing recruiting incentives, some legal analysts think it could expose itself to an antitrust investigation.

While the NCAA intends to work with federal congressional legislators to replace the interim policy with a single nationwide policy, there is no timeline on when that might happen. NCSA will continue to monitor changes as they relate to NIL laws and provide updates to the team, when necessary.

Repercussions on the current NCAA NIL Compensation Restrictions

The interim NIL policy that took effect on July 1, 2021, and the guidance that was released on October 26, 2022, appear to be part of a larger NCAA strategy to control booster groups and colleges rather than student-athletes. The NCAA’s strategy appears to be in response to state NIL laws that, although generally preventing the NCAA from restricting an athlete’s entitlement to NIL compensation, do not address the NCAA’s regulatory jurisdiction for institutions, universities, and boosters/collectives situated within the state. Without endangering student athletes’ eligibility, the is likely to keep trying to enforce its NIL laws against colleges and boosters/collectives.

Conclusion

Understanding the fundamental legal basis behind the recent NIL wave is crucial to navigating the NIL landscape as an athlete, university, or school. Instead of focusing on student-athletes, the NCAA now seems to be changing how it approaches NIL regulation by focusing on colleges and booster/collectives. However, if state NIL laws are overturned as a result of the Alston decision by the US Supreme Court, there is still a chance that the NCAA will alter its position.

FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE- 

NBA

NFL 

MLB