Changing economic and political circumstances are prompting US institutions—including colleges and universities—to reconsider their publicly stated sustainability targets and climate commitments. This trend reflects economic pressures, scrutiny of climate action by the current federal administration and some state attorneys general, and the reality that many entities with decarbonization goals (e.g., “net zero by 2050”) are not on track to meet them. 

It is no secret that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) landscape has transformed into a commercial marketplace where student athletes who choose to do so can recoup not only scholarships and other educational benefits, but also direct cash payments. The landmark 2021 Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston fundamentally changed the rules by allowing athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) through compensation from entities outside of a school (“external NIL”), and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in House v. NCAA, took the concept of NIL as something of value that belongs to student athletes to another level by allowing colleges to “opt in” to an agreement which allows schools to pay student athletes directly for their NIL (“internal NIL”).