As it stands, student-athletes — “amateur athletes” — participating in NCAA-affiliated sports cannot earn money from their name, image and likeness (NIL). They risk losing eligibility if they attempt to monetize their brands.
This issue, although longstanding, is again coming to a head as the NCAA is and will be facing more opposition to its rule in both the court of law and legislation. Multiple states are individually pushing back against the NCAA’s rulings through state legislation, many having passed bills allowing college athletes to profit from their NIL, including California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska and New Jersey. Florida will become the first state to implement NIL rights legislation — effective July 1, 2021 — allowing college athletes in Florida to profit off their NIL.
The NCAA has dealt with NIL lawsuits before, such as the 2009 case of O’Bannon v. NCAA. The organization is now combating another NIL dispute — filed June 15, 2020 — helmed by Grant House, a current Division I student-athlete for Arizona State University’s men’s swimming and diving team, and Sedona Prince, a current Division I student-athlete for the University of Oregon (UO) women’s basketball team.
“The NCAA continues to appeal the cases and that’s why we’re where we are now and that’s why states have passed legislation,” says Kenneth L. Shropshire, CEO of Global Sport Institute at Arizona State University (ASU).
“That’s sort of the way things go when there’s a dispute amongst the courts. Often legislatures will pass laws and that’s why there’s this emergence of NIL laws.”
An unclear path
But the backing of state law may not mean that student-athletes are out of the woods when it comes to NIL monetization.
