In the span of about two weeks, senators and representatives announced no fewer than four new bills that, if passed, would result in a national standard for name, image, and likeness practices which, as of now, vary from state to state. These bills join other proposed legislation introduced earlier this year. There are at least seven bills making their way through Congress, though not all of them have been formally introduced. These include:
- The Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act,
introduced by Representatives Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-MO) and
Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) (a former college athlete himself). This act would make it illegal for universities,
conferences, and organizations like the NCAA to prohibit athletes
from competing as a result of entering into an NIL contract.
However, athletes could lawfully be restricted from entering into
NIL deals with certain industries (e.g., tobacco, alcohol,
cannabis, adult entertainment). Boosters would be barred from
paying athletes to induce them to enroll or stay at a university.
The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") would have the
authority to enforce the law. In addition, the Department of
Education would appear to have indirect enforcement power. This is
because the law would require Program Participation Agreements
("PPAs")–contracts that universities sign with the
government to participate in federal student loan programs–to
include a commitment by schools to allow athletes to exercise their
NIL rights. The Department of Education could claim broad authority
to limit a university's access to student loan programs if it
breaches its PPA.
- The Fairness Accountability and Integrity in Representation
of College Sports Act, introduced by Congressman Gus Bilirakis
(R-FL). Under this act, colleges, conferences, and governing
bodies like the NCAA could not prohibit athletes from earning
compensation "commensurate with market value" for use of
their NIL or from signing contracts with agents. Again, athletes
could lawfully be restricted from entering into NIL deals with
businesses in certain industries (e.g., tobacco, alcohol, cannabis,
adult entertainment). Students who stop participating in athletics
could also rescind any NIL deal they've signed without giving
payments back, so long as the deal had 1+ year remaining. Licensees
could not enter into NIL deals until 90 days after an athlete has
enrolled at a university, use NIL deals to induce enrollment at a
particular school, or base NIL deals on the athlete's on-field
performance. The law would also establish the United States
Intercollegiate Athletics Committee ("USIAC"). All
athletes, agents, collectives, boosters, and licensees would have
to register with the USIAC, and all NIL deals would have to be
disclosed to it. The USIAC would present, among other data,
disaggregated information about every NIL deal in the country. The
FTC would have the authority to prosecute "unregistered"
agents, licensees, collectives, and boosters.
- The College Sports NIL Clearinghouse Act of 2023, drafted by
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Reportedly, under this act, institutions may not retaliate
against athletes who enter into NIL deals, though NIL deals may
still be prohibited if they would violate the school's code of
conduct or a state-wide law. This act would also establish the
"NIL Clearinghouse," an organization exempt from
antitrust laws which would police violations of the act and have
authority to impose fines or bans from college sports. It appears
that the bill would limit NIL compensation to "market
value" and would allow bans on NIL payments to induce
enrollment or for athletic performance.
- The College Athletes Protection & Compensation
Act, introduced by Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Richard
Blumenthal (D-CT) and Cory Booker (D-NJ). This act, which contains some similarly worded
provisions as Senator Graham's NIL Clearinghouse Act, protects
athletes' rights to sign with registered agents or enter into
"endorsement contracts," except endorsements with
industries adverse to an athlete's college's code of
conduct. Payments to induce initial or continued enrollment would
be prohibited, and universities, conferences, and organizations
like the NCAA would be barred from representing students or from
playing any part in setting their compensation for endorsements.
However, universities would be required to provide athletes with
"a list of rules that govern endorsement contracts." It
is not clear what "rules" a university would have
authority to impose. This act would also allow rescission of NIL
deals with more than 1 year remaining under similar terms as
Representative Bilirakis's proposed legislation. Furthermore,
athletes could not be punished for entering into a professional
draft, so long as the athlete does not obtain payment from the
professional league, team, or agent and as long as the student
declares their intention to resume collegiate sports within seven
days after the draft ends. In addition to these common provisions,
the proposed law includes various other protections for athletes,
including mandatory medical care payments, non-interference with an
athlete's choice of major, continuation of scholarships in case
of career-ending injury, and others. Finally, this act would
establish a new non-profit corporation–the College Athletics
Corporation–which would among other things) serve as a
"clearinghouse" and "establish rules and
investigatory procedures" that set standards for endorsement
contracts and the authorization of individuals to serve as
agents.
- The Protecting Athletes, Schools, and Sports (PASS) Act of
2023, introduced by Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Tommy
Tuberville (R-AL). The senators had, for some time, sought to
develop a national NIL standard, and they state that their act is the product of input from stakeholders
throughout the college sports industry. This act would protect
athletes' NIL rights (as with the others) but would allow
exceptions for alcohol, cannabis, casinos, pharmaceuticals, and
certain other industries. This act would requires boosters to be
formally associated with a university before assisting with
recruiting or with providing benefits to an athlete. Payments to
induce enrollment would be prohibited. NIL contracts would have to
be written in a form provided by the FTC, and athletes could only
sign NIL deals after enrolling at their chosen institution.
Contracts would have to be disclosed to the FTC. Universities would
have to provide health care coverage for sports-related industries
and financial literacy training. In terms of enforcement, the
statute would direct the NCAA to investigate NIL violations and to
report them to the FTC for further action. One of the more
interesting provisions, however, would affect the well-known
"transfer portal." The law, if passed, would require
"student-athletes to complete their first three years of
academic eligibility before allowing them to transfer without
penalty, subject to a few exceptions."
- The College Athlete Economic Freedom Act, introduced
by Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Representative Lori Trahan
(D-MA). This act grants an unrestricted right to athletes to
pursue NIL deals and authorizes athletes to organize groups and
appoint a group representative to negotiate an NIL deal on a
group-wide basis. Collectives would be required to register with
the FTC, track deals they facilitate, and report the disaggregated
details to the FTC. Finally, the proposed law contains unique
provisions for international student-athletes, purporting to
"[a]llow international college athletes to market their NIL in
the same ways their non-immigrant peers can without losing their
F-1 visa status."
- Senator Ted Cruz's draft legislation, which is not yet named. The senator's draft bill would protect athletes' rights to obtain representation and enter into NIL deals, except deals which fall into the vaguely worded category of "violat[ing] the code of student conduct, reasonably impact[ing] the [school's] reputation or public image, or conflict[ing] with the terms of an existing contract or agreement[ ] of the institution at which the student athlete is enrolled." This legislation would also set forth certain provisions which must appear in any NIL deal (e.g., scope of work, amount of compensation to be paid, length of agreement, etc.). The draft law would allow the NCAA or conferences to publish NIL deal data to allow other athletes to estimate the value of their publicity rights. Interestingly, the draft law would not outright prohibit payments to induce an athlete to enroll, nor would it impose new transfer portal requirements. Instead, it gives the NCAA and conferences the authority to set their own rules on those, and other, issues.
It is important to remember that, to date, no NIL law has ever made it through Congress. It is also important to understand that the proposals above contain many more details than what is discussed here, and that all of those details are subject to change as part of the legislative process. Still, those who are eager to have a federal NIL standard must be encouraged by the recent uptick in congressional activity.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.