Menu
The NCAA could pass NIL legislation next week, but a vote scheduled for Monday may be in jeopardy.

Nearing The Finish Line


College athletes will finally have the right to be compensated if the NCAA passes groundbreaking name, image and likeness legislation next week. The vote by the Division I Council, currently scheduled for Monday, comes amid a flurry of legal and political challenges that are putting substantial heat on the NCAA to permit some form of athlete payment.

While the vote on NIL legislation has been scheduled for Monday for months, the day the NCAA Convention opens, there remains some skepticism among NCAA leaders that a vote will actually happen next week. Sources were hearing as recently as this morning that the D-I Council might table it.

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey, one of the most influential voices in college athletics, is among those who have asked to pump the brakes on an NIL vote because of all the external forces at work, such as state NIL laws, the recently proposed college athletes bill of rights and the NCAA’s upcoming appearance in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tom McMillen, president and CEO of LEAD1, the association of FBS athletic directors, said, “It wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t have the vote.”

According to the NCAA’s schedule for the convention, the vote is supposed to happen at the end of a full day for the council on Monday. The agenda is 125 pages long. The NIL vote, if it occurs, would not become official until the Division I Board of Directors signs off on it Thursday, Jan 14.

Within those 125 pages are the proposed NIL rules and regulations, which have been under discussion since the NCAA’s original working group was formed in May 2019.

If the NIL legislation passes and creates a path for athlete compensation, it would likely be implemented in August. But there are several wild cards that could impact the NCAA’s plan between now and then.

The governing body will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this spring seeking to overturn a decision in the Alston case, which could create a new law on uncapped, education-related compensation for athletes.

Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced a college athletes bill of rights for consideration by Congress, a bill that would significantly alter the model of college athletics.

Five states have signed NIL laws -- Florida’s would be the first to go into effect in July -- while multiple federal bills have been proposed as well.

In addition to those factors, the elections swung power to the Democrats, meaning they will have control of the House, the Senate and all of the committees, which could throw more emphasis behind full-fledged NCAA reform, said McMillen, who served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1987-93.

It has the potential to be “a chaotic landscape” in 2021, according to NCAA President Mark Emmert.

That’s the environment in which the NCAA potentially brings forth its own NIL legislation on Monday. It’s also what has prompted a high-ranking commissioner like Sankey to publicly express concern over this timeline.

“Even after this week, if the legislation passes, there are going to be a lot of questions,” said Courtney Altemus, whose firm consults with schools and professional athletes on NIL education and financial literacy. “The start of NIL will bring all of the challenges, dangers and decisions that rookie professional athletes face, except with more rules for the student athletes. That’s daunting.”

Despite the 20 months of preparation by NCAA committees studying NIL and writing proposals, there remain several areas of contention, based on conversations with a half-dozen college insiders. They broke down the major NIL storylines going into the vote:

Sponsorship conflicts — There has been lengthy debate about how far schools can go to protect their sponsors. If a school has an official bank, does that mean the banking category is closed for its athletes?

“I’m most eager to see where the council nets out on conflicts in the space,” said Casey Schwab, founding partner and CEO of Altius Sports Partners, an NIL consultancy. “I want to see how those rules for sponsorships will be interpreted and ultimately applied.”

The NCAA’s initial proposal seemed too restrictive on athletes, Charlotte AD Mike Hill said, but he’s seen some schools become more receptive to loosening restrictions on endorsements.

“It’s in our best interests to have the most deregulated system possible,” said Hill, who co-chaired a LEAD1 working group and submitted recommendations to the D-I Council.

School marks — Initial proposals prohibited the use of school marks for D-I athletes in their appearances, while D-II and D-III proposals allowed school marks as long as they were paid for. Will the D-I proposal stand or will the council OK athletes to use school marks?

Compliance — Institutional accountability came up as a major concern among ADs. They want clear boundaries on where the school’s responsibility ends and the athlete’s responsibility begins.

If athletes fail to report an income-producing appearance, they could get hit with penalties. But what about the school? Does the university get hit with an infraction too? There remains a need for clarity on how involved an athletic department can be.

“What the schools can control is educating their athletes; they can’t go unarmed into this marketplace,” said Doug Fillis, a former IMG College executive and athletic administrator at Rutgers who started Accelerate Sports Ventures last year to assist schools.

“The athletes need legal education, tax education, financial literacy,” Fillis said. “They need to understand LLCs and 1099s. You can talk about building a brand, but the fastest way to not have a brand is to be ineligible.”

Recruiting — Everything in college athletics comes back to recruiting, and this is no different. The legislation will have to clearly define the difference between a legitimate commercial endeavor and a booster improperly paying an athlete to play football.

Agents — The NCAA proposed a very narrow role for agents, which would allow them to talk to athletes about their marketing, but not about their professional sports opportunities. Opponents call that impractical and unenforceable.

Several other topics were raised, from Congressional oversight to group licensing and revenue sharing, although those issues are not expected to come into play with this vote.

“Between conflicts and accountability, there are a lot of complicated issues,” McMillen said.