NAME, IMAGE, & LIKENESS &
BEYOND: The Changing Legal
Landscape of College Athletics.
Peter A. Carfagna, Faculty Supervisor of the HLS Sports Law Placement Program and Lecturer
of 3 HLS Sports Law Courses Per Year
 A class of former collegiate athletes led by Shawne Alston filed a
lawsuit against the NCAA and its member schools claiming that
the NCAA’s rules restricting compensation in exchange for the
collegiate athletes’ athletic services violated antitrust laws.
 District Court (2019)
 Judge Claudia Wilken held that the NCAA and its member schools
NCAA v. Alston
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by agreeing to limit
how much each can compensate athletes for “education related
expenses.”
 Ninth Circuit (2020)
 Affirmed Judge Wilken’s ruling
 SCOTUS (2021)
 Unanimous affirmation of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion
 Judge Kavanaugh’s concurrence
 Effect as precedent and the “Amateurism” defense
 Prior to SCOTUS’s ruling in NCAA v. Alston, individual states
State Legislation
and NCAA NIL
Policy
passed legislation that would prohibit the NCAA, conferences,
and schools from enforcing rules that prevent student-athletes
from earning compensation for use of NIL. The earliest of
effective date of these laws was July 1, 2021.
 In order to prevent an imbalance between schools based on their
state’s NIL status, on June 30, 2021, the NCAA adopted a
uniform interim policy suspending its current name, image, and
likeness rules.
 “Individuals can engage in NIL activities that are consistent with
the law of the state where the school is located. Colleges and
universities may be a resource for state law questions.
 College athletes who attend a school in a state without an NIL law
NCAA NIL
Policy
can engage in this type of activity without violating NCAA rules
related to name, image and likeness.
 Individuals can use a professional services provider for NIL
activities.
 Student-athletes should report NIL activities consistent with state
law or school and conference requirements to their school.”
 Main concerns: preventing improper recruiting and pay-for-play
transactions.
 Governed by:
 State law (currently, 28 states have passed
Current NIL
Ecosystem
NIL legislation);
 Individual school policies; and
 Conference policies
Sample NIL
Policies
 Ivy League
 Harvard
 Boston College
 Haley and Hanna Cavinder, members of the Fresno State
women’s basketball team, made an impact by signing multiple
national deals on July 1, 2021.
 MMA Gym in Miami offered all 90 scholarship players at the
University of Miami $500 to promote the gyms through social
media, personal appearances, etc.
Notable NIL
Deals
 Mikey Williams, a high school basketball player, signed a
representation agreement with Excel Sports to represent him for
NIL deals.
 The entire SDSU Football Team signed NIL deals with College
Hunks Hauling Junk Moving Company.
 BYU executed a a multi-year NIL agreement with Built Brands
that will include compensation to all 123 members of the
Cougars' football team as well as full tuition for walk-on players.
 Hercy Miller, freshman basketball player at Tennessee State
University, signed a four year, $2 million endorsement deal with
tech company Web Apps America.
 Quinn Ewers, a Texas high school quarterback, decided to forego
Notable NIL
Deals
his senior season and enroll at Ohio State University because
Texas law prohibited high school athletes from monetizing their
NIL rights. Ewers has already secured over $1 million from NIL
deals.
 FAU quarterback N'Kosi Perry signed an NIL deal with
Islamorada Beer Company – the first NIL deal in the alcohol
category.
 Clemson QB DJ Uiagalelei, University of Miami QB D'Eriq
King, and Oklahoma QB Spencer Rattler all signed multiple NIL
deals and are either injured or having underwhelming seasons.
NAME, IMAGE, & LIKENESS &
BEYOND: The Changing Legal
Landscape of College Athletics.
Peter A. Carfagna, Peter A. Carfagna, Faculty Supervisor of the HLS Sports Law Placement
Program and Lecturer of 3 HLS Sports Law Courses Per Year