In 2021, the NCAA upended its decades-long prohibition on student athletes’ ability to profit from their name, image and likeness (NIL). This means that student athletes now have, and will continue to market themselves as, a “brand,” i.e., an identity or personality that has intrinsic value, in part due to their association with school athletics. The landmark $2.8 billion proposed settlement in House vs. NCAA, currently pending approval in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, will establish guidelines for this revenue-sharing, including for NIL revenues, among schools and student athletes, further allowing students to profit off of their individual contributions to their team.
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”).
The House v. NCAA settlement, effective July 1, 2025, marks a new era in college sports compensation that allows for payments to student-athletes for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) from their colleges or universities. Despite these advancements, receiving NIL payments will create a unique challenge for international student-athletes, the vast majority of whom are studying in the U.S. on student visas that limit their ability to work.
The landscape of college athletics is undergoing a seismic shift with the rise of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. As student-athletes gain the ability to monetize their personal brands, a new era of opportunity—and liability—is expanding far beyond the athletes. In addition to the student-athletes, NIL stakeholders include universities, athletic conferences and organizations, sponsors, and the athletes’ families, among others. Whether the goal is to guard against emerging liabilities or protect the NIL revenue stream itself, stakeholders should consider both traditional and specialty lines of insurance. Here’s what you need to know.
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