This excerpt from a blogger, Gary Stroschein (attorney I believe) goes back to 2020, and all this NIL stuff is fluid, but a primer on all the basics may be helpful. For example, if the NCAA gets its way and there is not a successful legal challenge to it, you're NOT going to see program boosters ponying up for NIL contracts for their own team's stud players. See the bolded section below.
Also see bolded section farther down about NCAA likely prohibiting student "profiting from immoral goods and services". Lordy. Who's gonna police that and successfully defend legal challenge relative to the SCOTUS decision?
And on and on.
E5
Gary Stroschein
May 19, 2020·11 min read
Breaking down the NCAA’s April 17th Report and predicting proposed regulations.
The NCAA is facing a revolution. If you’re one of the following, you should be paying attention.
Gone will be the days of student-athletes not getting paid. Good riddance. Student-athletes will soon be able to profit from their unique position and natural reach — their name, image and likeness (NIL). A couple of states have enacted legislation to create a framework for student-athletes to be compensated for their NIL. And it has spurred action at the federal level and by the NCAA.
What does NIL compensation mean? Generally speaking, it means a student-athlete can profit off their own name (e.g. by endorsing products and services, making appearances, promoting their own businesses, etc.)
This grassroots movement began last September when the state of California passed SB 206, commonly referred to as the “Fair Pay to Play Act”. The bill received national attention after endorsement by Lebron James and other high-profile athletes. California’s Governor Newsom even signed the bill on James’ HBO show — The Shop.
Unsurprisingly, the NCAA withheld its support of SB 206 because of its inconsistency with the NCAA — a body that oversees college athletics across the country. SB 206 would only apply to California schools, which could create an unfair advantage in recruiting the athletes.
However, the NCAA did agree changes need to take place by stating:
Fast forward to today and many states have proposed bills similar to SB 206. The NCAA has also released a 31-page report outlining the potential scope of NIL compensation for student-athletes while hinting at areas of focus for a regulatory framework.
The following are 3 big questions I took away from the NCAA’s report along with further thoughts to flesh out how the NCAA might attempt to regulate this student-athlete revolution.
University boosters, however, are different. But first, what is a booster? I’m not sure if the NCAA bylaws truly define this term, but a booster is generally understood as someone who supports the university.
Often they are alumni or have a local presence that makes support of the university logical (e.g. prominent business, governmental, and organizational leaders in the community).
A booster’s support can come in many forms — money, time, connections, and access to other resources.
Naturally, boosters could play a large role in NIL activities as they tend to own or work for businesses that could compensate players for NIL.
In its report, the NCAA noted the difficulty in regulating boosters when it comes to NIL —
The NCAA also tipped its hand on the ways it may regulate NIL activity for athletes in general, which, of course, raises additional questions.
In Section 3(b), page 24 of the report, the NCAA listed areas of regulation, some of the more interesting targets include:
a. Prohibiting promotion of “immoral” goods and activities. The report specifically lists alcohol, tobacco, and sports gambling. How far will a list of taboo goods and services extend in any proposed regulation?
One item left off this list is weed and related CBD products — both of which are crowd favorite amongst college students and likely followers of student-athletes. It’s legal in some states but not others. How will it be treated?
b. Prohibiting deals with athletic shoe and apparel companies. The NCAA gave the following justification for why such a prohibition is needed:
Also see bolded section farther down about NCAA likely prohibiting student "profiting from immoral goods and services". Lordy. Who's gonna police that and successfully defend legal challenge relative to the SCOTUS decision?
And on and on.
E5
Student-Athlete Name, Image, and Likeness Compensation
Gary Stroschein
May 19, 2020·11 min read
Breaking down the NCAA’s April 17th Report and predicting proposed regulations.
The NCAA is facing a revolution. If you’re one of the following, you should be paying attention.
- Prospective or current student-athletes
- Universities and their athletic departments
- University boosters
- Marketers
- Agents and representatives
Gone will be the days of student-athletes not getting paid. Good riddance. Student-athletes will soon be able to profit from their unique position and natural reach — their name, image and likeness (NIL). A couple of states have enacted legislation to create a framework for student-athletes to be compensated for their NIL. And it has spurred action at the federal level and by the NCAA.
What does NIL compensation mean? Generally speaking, it means a student-athlete can profit off their own name (e.g. by endorsing products and services, making appearances, promoting their own businesses, etc.)
This grassroots movement began last September when the state of California passed SB 206, commonly referred to as the “Fair Pay to Play Act”. The bill received national attention after endorsement by Lebron James and other high-profile athletes. California’s Governor Newsom even signed the bill on James’ HBO show — The Shop.
Unsurprisingly, the NCAA withheld its support of SB 206 because of its inconsistency with the NCAA — a body that oversees college athletics across the country. SB 206 would only apply to California schools, which could create an unfair advantage in recruiting the athletes.
However, the NCAA did agree changes need to take place by stating:
The NCAA then organized a working group to consider issues with student-athlete NIL compensation. The end goal being to update the NCAA bylaws and propose legislation to Congress that would preempt any state laws and provide an exception for the NCAA from antitrust laws.
Fast forward to today and many states have proposed bills similar to SB 206. The NCAA has also released a 31-page report outlining the potential scope of NIL compensation for student-athletes while hinting at areas of focus for a regulatory framework.
The following are 3 big questions I took away from the NCAA’s report along with further thoughts to flesh out how the NCAA might attempt to regulate this student-athlete revolution.
1. What kind of rules will exist for university boosters involved in NIL compensation activity?
In the report, the NCAA stated a commitment to upholding its principles and values by ensuring NIL compensation does not:- Become a disguised method to pay student-athletes for athletic performance;
- Induce players to attend a particular school; or
- Otherwise interfere with the recruiting process.
University boosters, however, are different. But first, what is a booster? I’m not sure if the NCAA bylaws truly define this term, but a booster is generally understood as someone who supports the university.
Often they are alumni or have a local presence that makes support of the university logical (e.g. prominent business, governmental, and organizational leaders in the community).
A booster’s support can come in many forms — money, time, connections, and access to other resources.
Naturally, boosters could play a large role in NIL activities as they tend to own or work for businesses that could compensate players for NIL.
In its report, the NCAA noted the difficulty in regulating boosters when it comes to NIL —
The NCAA working group stated an outright ban on booster participation in NIL activity would be unnecessarily restrictive and, alternatively, proposed exploring rules specific to boosters —
2. What won’t student’s be able to profit from?The NCAA also tipped its hand on the ways it may regulate NIL activity for athletes in general, which, of course, raises additional questions.
In Section 3(b), page 24 of the report, the NCAA listed areas of regulation, some of the more interesting targets include:
a. Prohibiting promotion of “immoral” goods and activities. The report specifically lists alcohol, tobacco, and sports gambling. How far will a list of taboo goods and services extend in any proposed regulation?
One item left off this list is weed and related CBD products — both of which are crowd favorite amongst college students and likely followers of student-athletes. It’s legal in some states but not others. How will it be treated?
b. Prohibiting deals with athletic shoe and apparel companies. The NCAA gave the following justification for why such a prohibition is needed:
