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”).
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
Tags
- Accreditation
- Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS)
- Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Campus Police
- Civil Rights
- Clery Act
- College Sports Commission (CSC)
- Compliance
- DEI
- Department of Education (ED)
- Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- Department of State (DOS)
- Disability Accommodations
- Disparate-Impact Liability
- EEOC
- Executive Order (EO)
- F-1 Student Visa
- F-1 Visa
- First Amendment
- Fourth Circuit
- Free Speech
- Greenwashing
- Immigration
- Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- Insurance
- Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)
- Massachusetts
- Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A)
- Minor Students
- Name, Image, Likeness (NIL)
- National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
- New Jersey
- Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
- Pregnancy-Related Accommodations
- Presidential Memorandum
- Reduction in Force (RIF)
- Section 117
- Sexual Harassment
- Sovereign Immunity
- State Law
- Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
- Sustainability
- Title IV
- Title IX
- Title VI