After Further Review: How the N.C.A.A.’s Division I Should Implement Name, Image, and Likeness Rights to Save Themselves and Best Preserve the Integrity of College Athletics
Southern University Law Review, Forthcoming
23 Pages Posted: 1 Mar 2020
Date Written: January 30, 2020
California SB 206 bans California public schools from NCAA membership unless the NCAA alters its name-image-likeness (NIL) policy by 2021. The NCAA Board of Governors ordered each division to modernize and adapt its rules to honor the California law, while still respecting certain principles of amateurism. These two mandates are untenable, as the NCAA is hesitant to create an open market for athletes to shop their NIL rights to the school with the highest bidding boosters.
The author started with SB 206 and identified areas where the NCAA was in violation. The author then examined the NCAA Board of Governor’s charge to the newly created Federal and State Legislation Working Group and its subsequent report. The author then sought out relevant quotations from leaders of the NCAA, university athletics, and legislators. The author then read hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles regarding SB 206 and NIL policy. Keeping the Working Group’s restrictions in mind, the author crafted a recommendation.
This Article attempts to guide NCAA Division I in crafting its NIL policy. It examines the NCAA’s history of pay-to-play and the limitations placed on reform by the working group and gives the NCAA justifications and recommendations for NIL reform. Lastly, the author forecasts only three possible outcomes: preemption of federal NIL legislation, withdrawal of the California law, or NCAA litigation with California.
Keywords: Name image and likeness, NIL, NCAA, Fair Pay to Play, California SB 206, amateurism, college athletes, college athletics, NCAA Division I, pay-to-play
JEL Classification: A13, G38, J15, J16, J17, J18, J24, J32, J38, J45, J47, J51, J52, J54, J7, J78, J81, J83, K12, K21, K
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation