Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness
July 1, 2021
Legislation: Considerations for the 117th
Whitney K. Novak
Congress
Legislative Attorney

The national debate on college athlete compensation, fueled in part by high-profile litigation and
state legislative enactments, has prompted calls for congressional action on the issue of student

athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation. NIL refers generally to the use of an
athlete’s name, picture, or appearance, often for commercial purposes. The National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), the primary regulator of intercollegiate athletics, prohibits student athletes from receiving compensation for their
athletic skills beyond allowed grant-in-aid provided by their higher education institutions. The NCAA justifies these rules as
a way to promote amateurism in intercollegiate athletics. Among other compensation-related rules, the NCAA prohibits
student athletes from profiting from the use of their NIL to promote or endorse products or services.
The NCAA’s rules prohibiting student athlete NIL compensation have become the focus of several lawsuits. One of the most
notable, O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, challenged the NCAA’s rules under federal antitrust laws that
prohibit unreasonable restraint on trade. In O’Bannon, the plaintiff—a former college athlete—discovered his likeness was
being used in a commercial video game without his permission or compensation. Representing a class of current and former
college athletes, the plaintiff sued the NCAA, claiming that its rules prohibiting student athletes from being compensated for
the use of their NIL in video games, live game telecasts, and other video footage, violated the Sherman Antitrust Act
(Sherman Act). In a 2015 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the rules violated the Sherman
Act, but determined that the rules had some pro-competitive justifications. The court required the NCAA to permit schools to
provide student athletes compensation up to the full cost of attendance, but it did not directly change the specific rules
regarding NIL compensation. Since the O’Bannon litigation, several other antitrust lawsuits have been filed that challenge the
NCAA’s compensation rules, one of which, NCAA v. Alston, was recently resolved by the Supreme Court.
Soon after the O’Bannon decision, individual states began considering legislation to grant NIL rights to student athletes. The
first, the California Fair Pay to Play Act, was signed into law on September 30, 2019, and goes into effect on January 1,
2023. The Fair Pay to Play Act generally makes it illegal for postsecondary institutions and athletic associations, conferences,
or groups with authority over intercollegiate athletics to prevent student athletes from earning compensation for the use of
their NILs. At least 19 other states have passed similar laws in the years following the Fair Pay to Play Act, and several of
these laws go into effect as soon as July 2021.
Shortly after California passed the Fair Pay to Play Act, the NCAA began working on reforming its own NIL compensation
rules. In October 2020, the NCAA approved a proposal to generally allow student athletes to be compensated for a
commercial, nonprofit, or charitable entity’s use of their NIL. These proposed bylaw amendments were first scheduled for a
vote before NCAA leadership in January 2021, but the vote was postponed after NCAA President Mark Emmert received a
letter from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) antitrust division that suggested the DOJ may object to new NIL rules on
antitrust grounds. Recently, the NCAA proposed a temporary policy that would allow student-athletes to earn NIL
compensation according to the laws of the state where they attend school.
Although the NCAA claims that it remains committed to modernizing its NIL rules, it has called on Congress to pass federal
NIL compensation legislation. NCAA President Emmert, while testifying at a July 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing,
emphasized that 36 states had either passed or introduced NIL legislation, and argued that a patchwork of different state laws
would create a burden for the NCAA. At least eight bills were introduced in the 116th Congress that addressed, among other
things, NIL compensation rights. Although none of the bills were passed into law, they each provided a unique framework for
addressing the NIL issue, covering topics such as NIL rights and professional representation for NIL matters. At least three
bills have been introduced on the topic in the 117th Congress, including a bill from the 116th Congress that was reintroduced
with minimal changes.
Congressional Research Service

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

he national debate on college athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation,
fueled in part by high-profile litigation and state legislative enactments, has prompted calls
T for congressional action.1 Currently, the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s
(NCAA’s) rules prohibit student athletes from receiving compensation for the commercial use of
their NIL. Receiving such compensation jeopardizes an athlete’s eligibility to compete in
intercollegiate athletics. These rules—and other NCAA rules prohibiting student athlete
compensation—have been the subject of several court cases, but no court has yet to invalidate
them. Although the NCAA has proposed changes to its NIL compensation rules, it has tabled the
matter amidst concerns that its proposed changes may violate federal antitrust laws.
In recent years, individual states have begun enacting legislation to provide student athletes with
NIL compensation rights. Many of these laws take effect as early as July 2021. The NCAA,
concerned with the potential for a patchwork of individual state laws, has called on Congress to
enact federal standards on the issue of NIL compensation rights.
This report begins by providing a background on NIL compensation issues, including a brief
summary of recently passed state laws and a discussion of the NCAA’s proposed rule changes,
and then addresses the bills that were introduced in the 116th Congress and those that have been
introduced so far in the 117th Congress.
Background
Relevant NCAA Rules Regarding NIL Compensation
The NCAA was founded in 1905 to create rules, also known as bylaws, for intercollegiate
athletics.2 Today the organization is composed of nearly 1,100 member institutions3 with the basic
purpose of “maintain[ing] intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program
and the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by so doing, retain[ing] a clear line of
demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.”4 To further this purpose
and association principles, the NCAA issues and enforces rules that govern athletic competition
between its member institutions.5 Under its stated “Principles for Conduct of Intercollegiate
Athletics,”6 the NCAA emphasized its commitment to amateurism and the idea that “[s]tudent-
athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated
primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived. Student

1 See Rachel Stark-Mason, Name. Image. Likeness. NCAA Champion, http://www.ncaa.org/champion/name-image-
likeness (last visited May 3, 2021) (defining name, image, and likeness as three elements that make up the legal “right
to publicity” which involves a situation “where permission is required of a person to use their name, image, or
likeness.”).
2 See generally O’Bannon v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 802 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2015).
3 What is the NCAA?, NCAA, http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/ncaa-101/what-ncaa (last visited May
3, 2021). NCAA member institutions are divided into three divisions, Division I, Division II, and Division III based
generally on size. Our Three Divisions, NCAA, http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/ncaa-101/our-three-
divisions (last visited May 3, 2021). Because larger institutions are in Division I, this report will focus on Division I
rules.
4 NAT’L COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASS’N, 2020-21 NCAA DIVISION I MANUAL § 1.3.1 (2020),
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/reports/getReport/90008 [hereinafter Division I Manual].
5 Id. at § 2.01.
6 Pursuant to the Division I Manual, any rules passed by the NCAA that govern intercollegiate athletics “shall be
designed to advance one or more basic principles . . . to which the members are committed.” See id.
Congressional Research Service

1

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation, and student-athletes should be protected
from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises.”7
With this guiding amateurism principle, the NCAA has issued a series of rules that govern matters
such as student athlete eligibility, financial aid, scholarships, and compensation; including
specific rules that limit how student athletes may earn money.8 For example, NCAA rules state
that student athletes may receive “scholarships or educational grants-in-aid administered by an
educational institution” within the bounds of NCAA rules.9 NCAA rules limit financial aid to
include only the “cost of attendance that normally is incurred by students enrolled in a
comparable program at that institution.”10 Student athletes receiving financial aid other than that
permitted by the NCAA lose their intercollegiate athletic eligibility.11 Because the NCAA does
not consider financial aid “to be pay or the promise of pay for athletics skill,”12 any other
compensation to student athletes other than “financial aid” for athletic services may deem the
athlete ineligible for intercollegiate competition.13
NCAA rules also allow compensation for non-athletic work, and student athletes may earn
compensation for “work actually performed . . . at a rate commensurate with the going rate in that
locality for similar services.”14 However, compensation earned from outside employment may not
include “any remuneration for value or utility that the student-athlete may have for the employer
because of the publicity, reputation, fame or personal following that he or she has obtained
because of athletics ability.”15 NCAA rules also provide that a student athlete may start his or her
own business, however, “the student-athlete’s name, photograph, appearance or athletics
reputation are not used to promote the business.”16
Importantly, section 12.5 in the NCAA Division I Manual—entitled “Promotional Activities”—
governs the permissible17 and non-permissible uses of a student athlete’s NIL, which refers
generally to the use of an athlete’s name, picture, or appearance.18 Current NCAA rules state that
a student athlete becomes ineligible for intercollegiate athletic competition if the student athlete
(a) Accepts any remuneration for or permits the use of his or her name or picture to
advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or
service of any kind; or

7 Id. at § 2.9.
8 See generally id. at §§ 12-13 & 15.
9 Id. at § 15.01.1.
10 See id. at §§ 15.1, 15.01.6.
11 Id. at § 15.01.2.
12 Id. at § 12.01.4.
13 Id. at § 12.1.2.
14 Id. at § 12.4.1.
15 Id. at § 12.4.1.1.
16 Id. at § 12.4.4.
17 Id. at § 12.5.1.1 (noting that “[a]n institution or recognized entity thereof (e.g., fraternity, sorority or student
government organization), a conference or a noninstitutional charitable, educational or nonprofit agency may use a
student-athlete’s name, picture or appearance to support its charitable or educational activities or to support activities
considered incidental to the student-athlete’s participation in intercollegiate athletics” so long as certain listed
conditions are met.).
18 Id. at § 12.5. See also Stark-Mason, supra note 1.
Congressional Research Service

2

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

(b) Receives remuneration for endorsing a commercial product or service through the
individual’s use of such product or service.19
Relevant Litigation
There have been several challenges to the legality of the NCAA’s amateurism rules, specifically
the prohibition on NIL compensation. One of the most notable examples, O’Bannon v. National
Collegiate Athletic Association,20 challenged the amateurism rules under federal antitrust laws
that prohibit unreasonable restraints on trade. In O’Bannon, the plaintiff—a former college
athlete—discovered his likeness was being used in a commercial video game without his
permission or compensation.21 Representing a class of current and former college athletes, the
plaintiff sued the NCAA claiming its rules prohibiting student athletes from being compensated
for the use of their NILs in video games, live game telecasts, and other video footage, violated the
Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act).22 In a 2014 decision, the district court ruled that the
challenged NCAA rules had both anticompetitive and pro-competitive effects on trade. However,
because two “less restrictive alternatives”23 were available to fulfill the NCAA’s stated pro-
competitive justifications for the rules, the rules ultimately violated the Sherman Act.24 The two
less restrictive alternatives, according to the court, included (1) payment of scholarships or
stipends up to the cost of attendance beyond the grant-in-aid cap,25 and (2) permitting colleges to

19 Id. at § 12.5.2.1.
20 7 F. Supp. 3d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2014), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S.
Ct. 277 (2016).
21 Id. at 965.
22 Id.
23 In antitrust cases, courts may apply the “less restrictive alternatives” test when the alleged conduct has both
anticompetitive and pro-competitive effects on trade. Under the less restrictive alternatives test, a court may compare
the alleged conduct to a “hypothesized alternative” and determine whether “the alternative action is less harmful in the
particular sense that it is ‘less restrictive,’” or, in other words, “could the good have been achieved equally well with
less bad?” If the alternative action is less harmful to competition, then the conduct at issue will be deemed to be in
violation of antitrust law. See C. Scott Hemphill, Less Restrictive Alternatives in Antitrust Law, 116 COLUM. L. REV.
927, 929 (2016).
24 O’Bannon, 7 F. Supp. 3d at 1007. The district court found the NCAA produced “sufficient evidence” that some of its
restrictions on student athlete compensation yielded pro-competitive benefits. For example, rules preventing schools
from paying athletes large sums of money “may serve to increase consumer demand for its product,” and “may
facilitate its member schools’ efforts to integrate student-athletes into the academic communities on their campuses.”
Id. at 1004.
25 As the district court explained, the cost of attendance is usually higher than the value of a full grant-in-aid under
NCAA rules. NCAA bylaws “define a full ‘grant-in-aid’ as ‘financial aid that consists of tuition and fees, room and
board, and required course-related books.’ This amount varies from school to school and from year to year. Any
student-athlete who receives financial aid in excess of this amount forfeits his athletic eligibility.” Id. at 971. The
NCAA however, “imposes a separate cap on the total amount of financial aid that a student-athlete may receive.
Specifically, it prohibits any student-athlete from receiving financial aid in excess of his ‘cost of attendance,’” which is
“a school-specific figure defined in the bylaws.” Id. Cost of attendance is usually “an amount calculated by [a school]’s
financial aid office, using federal regulations, that includes the total cost of tuition and fees, room and board, books and
supplies, transportation, and other expenses related to attendance” at that school.” Id. The court noted that “[b]ecause it
covers the cost of ‘supplies, transportation, and other expenses,’ the cost of attendance is generally higher than the
value of a full grant-in-aid,” and that “the gap between the full grant-in-aid and the cost of attendance varies from
school to school but is typically a few thousand dollars.” Id. at 971–72. In 2015, however, the “Power Five”
conferences—or the conferences that generate the most revenue—voted to increase overall grant-in-aid limits to allow
scholarships up to the full cost of attendance. See In re Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap
Antitrust Litig., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1058, 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (noting “[t]he revised “full grant-in-aid” comprises
“tuition and fees, room and board, books and other expenses related to attendance at the institution up to the cost of
attendance”), aff’d, 958 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2020).
Congressional Research Service

3

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

hold a portion of licensing revenues generated from the use of student athlete NILs in trust, to be
distributed to student athletes in equal shares after they leave school or their eligibility expires.26
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) upheld the district
court’s determination that the NCAA rules violated the Sherman Act; however, the Ninth Circuit
rejected the district court’s determination that creating a trust fund for student athletes was a less
restrictive alternative to the current NCAA rules.27 As a result, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court’s determination that the NCAA’s compensation rules, at that time, violated the
Sherman Act and affirmed the injunction requiring the NCAA to permit schools to provide
compensation up to the full cost of attendance.28
While the O’Bannon case targeted specific NCAA rules that restricted a student athlete’s income
from outside sources, other litigation has challenged the “interconnected” set of NCAA rules that
cap the amount of compensation a student athlete may receive.29 As mentioned above, NCAA
bylaws provide that “[a] student-athlete shall not be eligible to participate in intercollegiate
athletics if he or she receives financial aid that exceeds the value of the cost of attendance.”30 In
In re National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation
(Grant-in-Aid litigation), plaintiffs brought antitrust claims alleging that the NCAA and athletic
conferences had colluded to cap the compensation a school may provide to athletes.31 Applying
an analysis similar to that used in O’Bannon, the district court held that NCAA limits on
education-related benefits provided to student athletes were unreasonable restraints of trade under
the Sherman Act;32 however, the NCAA could continue to limit “compensation and benefits
unrelated to education.”33
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion and injunction prohibiting
the NCAA from limiting education-related benefits.34 This decision effectively allowed for athlete
compensation for certain education-related benefits that had previously been prohibited by the
NCAA such as “computers, science equipment, musical instruments and other items not currently
included in the cost of attendance calculation but nonetheless related to the pursuit of various
academic studies.”35
While the Grant-in-Aid litigation was not a direct challenge to the NCAA’s NIL compensation
rules, the antitrust allegations implicated the O’Bannon decision, in which the Ninth Circuit
required the NCAA to allow scholarships up to the cost of attendance.36 The Grant-in-Aid

26 O’Bannon, 7 F. Supp. 3d at 983–84.
27 O’Bannon v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 802 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2015).
28 Id. at 1075–76.
29 See In re Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal.
2019), aff’d, 958 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. granted sub nom., Am. Athletic Conference v. Alston, No. 20-520,
2020 WL 7366279 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2020), Nat’l Coll. Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, No. 20-512, 2020 WL 7366281 (U.S.
Dec. 16, 2020) [hereinafter Grant-in-Aid I].
30 Division I Manual, supra note 4, § 15.1.
31 Grant-in-Aid I, 375 F. Supp. 3d at 1061.
32 Id. at 1062.
33 Id. at 1087.
34 In re Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., 958 F.3d 1239, 1266 (9th Cir. 2020),
cert. granted sub nom., Am. Athletic Conference v. Alston, No. 20-520, 2020 WL 7366279 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2020), Nat’l
Coll. Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, No. 20-512, 2020 WL 7366281 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2020) [hereinafter Grant-in-Aid II].
35 Grant-in-Aid I, 375 F. Supp. 3d at 1088.
36 Id. at 1065 (noting that “[b]y the time the O’Bannon injunction went into effect, the NCAA had already increased,
through the Autonomy structure, the grant-in-aid limit to the cost-of-attendance amount for all Division I student-
Congressional Research Service

4

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

litigation essentially opened the door to allow additional compensation and benefits (so long as
they were related to education) that a school could choose to offer its student athletes.37
On December 16, 2020, the Supreme Court granted petitions for certiorari in the Grant-in-Aid
litigation,38 and agreed to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision regarding whether NCAA rules
governing compensation of student athletes violate federal antitrust law.39 On June 21, 2021, the
Court issued a unanimous decision in the case—known before the Supreme Court as NCAA v.
Alston—affirming the Ninth Circuit.40 The Court held that the district court’s injunction
prohibiting NCAA rules that capped education-related benefits was consistent with established
antitrust principles.41 The Court rejected the NCAA’s arguments that because of the unique nature
of its product, it should be entitled to a more deferential review under antitrust law.42
Recently, however, another group of college athletes sued the NCAA for antitrust violations. This
time the allegations were aimed more directly at the specific NCAA rules prohibiting student
athletes from receiving compensation for the commercial use of their NIL based on new evidence
that has developed since the O’Bannon decision.43 The plaintiffs in House v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association allege that the NCAA conspired with the five largest athletic conferences to
fix the price for student athlete NIL compensation at zero, thereby depriving the athletes of
compensation for the use of their NIL in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.44 The
plaintiffs argue that the NCAA effectuates its price fixing through its rules and regulations, such
as Bylaw 12.5.2.1 (“Advertisements and Promotions After Becoming a Student Athlete”),45 which
collectively prohibit student athletes from receiving compensation based on athletic skills or
ability.46 Among other requested relief, the plaintiffs ask the court to declare the relevant NCAA
bylaws void and to enjoin the NCAA and athletic conferences from enforcing those rules.47 The
case is assigned to the same judge who heard the O’Bannon case and the Grant-in-Aid litigation.
Beyond challenging NCAA rules under antitrust theories, student athletes have also sought to
establish their rights to NIL compensation by claiming the NCAA NIL rules violate their right to

athletes, regardless of NIL use or revenue.”).
37 Jayma Meyer & Andrew Zimbalist, A Win Win: College Athletes Get Paid for Their Names, Images, and Likenesses
and Colleges Maintain the Primacy of Academics, 11 HARV. J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 247, 277 (2020).
38 Am. Athletic Conference v. Alston, No. 20-520, 2020 WL 7366279 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2020), Nat’l Coll. Athletic Ass’n
v. Alston, No. 20-512, 2020 WL 7366281 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2020).
39 See Petition for Writ of Certiorari at i, Nat’l Coll. Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, No. 20-512 (U.S. Oct. 15, 2020).
40 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, No. 20-512, 2021 WL 2519036 (U.S. June 21, 2021).
41 See id. See also, CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10613, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston and the Debate
over Student Athlete Compensation, by Whitney K. Novak.
42 Id.
43 Complaint at 5, House v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal. filed June 15, 2020).
44 Id. at 86.
45 Bylaw 12.5.2.1 states that “[a]fter becoming a student-athlete, an individual shall not be eligible for participation in
intercollegiate athletics if the individual: (a) [a]ccepts any remuneration for or permits the use of his or her name or
picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind; or
(b) [r]eceives remuneration for endorsing a commercial product or service through the individual’s use of such product
or service.” See Division I Manual, supra note 4 at § 12.5.2.1.
46 Complaint at 24, House v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal. filed June 15, 2020).
47 Id. at 90.
Congressional Research Service

5

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

publicity. Publicity rights—which are often found in state statutes48 or in the common law49—
allow a cause of action for individuals to challenge the unauthorized use of their identity for
commercial gain. Courts have held however, that the right to publicity must be balanced against a
defendant’s First Amendment interests in free expression.50 In two appellate cases decided in
2013, former college athletes asserted right-to-publicity claims under state law against a video
game producer (EA Sports) who allegedly used the likeness of the plaintiffs—without
permission—in NCAA sports-themed video games.51 In both cases, the courts balanced EA
Sports’ free expression interests against the individuals’ interest in protecting their right to
publicity. The courts held in each case that EA Sports had not sufficiently transformed the video
game characters’ likenesses to justify a First Amendment free-expression defense against the
athletes’ right-of-publicity claims.52 However, in 2016, another appellate court held that college
athletes did not have a right to publicity when they appeared in television broadcasts of games
because their claims were brought under the Tennessee Personal Rights Protection Act, which
“expressly permits the use of any player’s name or likeness in connection with any ‘sports
broadcast.’”53 Thus, the outcome of NIL challenges brought under right to publicity theories may
vary depending on the law in each jurisdiction. Some laws—such as Tennessee’s law—may
include statutory exemptions for athletes in certain circumstances, and other laws may have limits
on, for example, the scope or duration of protection of the right to publicity claim.54

48 See, e.g., CAL. CIV. CODE § 3344(a) (“Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph,
or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or
soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, or, in the case of
a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or
persons injured as a result thereof.”).
49 See Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 46 (Am. Law Inst. 1995) (“One who appropriates the commercial
value of a person’s identity by using without consent the person’s name, likeness, or other indicia of identity for
purposes of trade is subject to liability . . . .”).
50 In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 724 F.3d 1268, 1284 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Doe v.
TCI Cablevision, 110 S.W.3d 363, 373 (Mo. 2003) (noting “the use of a person’s identity in news, entertainment, and
creative works for the purpose of communicating information or expressive ideas about that person is protected
‘expressive’ speech.”)).
51 See id. at 1271; Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141, 146 (3d Cir. 2013).
52 In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 724 F.3d at 1279; Hart, 717 F.3d at 170. In both
cases, the courts considered—and rejected—the defendants’ assertion of the transformative use defense, which
provides First Amendment protection so long as “the work in question adds significant creative elements as to be
transformed into something more than a mere celebrity likeness or imitation.” In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name &
Likeness Licensing Litig., 724 F.3d at 1273. The defendants ultimately settled the lawsuit. See Tom Farrey, Players,
Game Makers Settle for $40M, ESPN (May 30, 2014), https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11010455/college-
athletes-reach-40-million-settlement-ea-sports-ncaa-licensing-arm (noting that college football and basketball players
finalized a $40 million settlement with EA Sports and the NCAA’s licensing arm for “improperly using the likeness of
athletes.”).
53 Marshall v. ESPN, 668 F. App’x 155, 157 (6th Cir. 2016).
54 See Talor Bearman, Intercepting Licensing Rights: Why College Athletes Need A Federal Right of Publicity, 15
VAND. J. ENT. & TECH. L. 85, 100 (2012) (noting that variations in state publicity laws may limit a student athlete’s
ability to win or even bring a right to publicity case in court).
Congressional Research Service

6

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

State Legislative Responses
Inspired by the O’Bannon litigation,55 California state lawmakers drafted the Fair Pay to Play Act,
which was signed into law on September 30, 2019.56 The Fair Pay to Play Act, which goes into
effect on January 1, 2023,57 generally makes it illegal for postsecondary institutions and athletic
associations, conferences, or groups with authority over intercollegiate athletics to prevent
student athletes from earning compensation for the use of their NIL.58 At least 18 other states
have passed similar laws in the years following California’s passage of the Fair Pay to Play Act.59
Florida,60 Colorado,61 Nebraska,62 New Jersey,63 Michigan,64 Arizona,65 New Mexico,66
Mississippi,67 Alabama,68 Arkansas,69 Georgia,70 South Carolina,71 Tennessee,72 Maryland,73
Montana,74 Nevada,75 Oklahoma,76 and Texas77 each passed legislation that would allow student
athletes in those states to receive compensation for the use of their NILs. Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Georgia, New Mexico, and Texas’s laws take effect July 1, 2021.78 Arizona’s law is
scheduled to take effect 91 days after the state legislature adjourns, which means it could be
effective as soon as July 24, 2021.79 Arkansas, Tennessee, and Nevada’s laws go into effect on

55 Michael McCann, What’s Next After California Signs Game Changer Fair Pay to Play Act Into Law?, SPORTS
ILLUSTRATED (Sept. 30, 2019), https://www.si.com/college/2019/09/30/fair-pay-to-play-act-law-ncaa-california-pac-12.
56 Fair Pay to Play Act, S.B. 206, 2019 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2019).
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 At least 18 other states have passed similar NIL laws as of July 1, 2021.
60 S.B. 646, 2020 Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2020).
61 S.B. 20-123, 2020 Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2020).
62 L.B. 962, 2020 Reg. Sess. (Neb. 2020).
63 S.B. 971, 2020 Reg. Sess. (N.J. 2020).
64 H.B. 5217, 2020 Reg. Sess. (Mich. 2021).
65 S.B. 1296, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2021).
66 S.B. 94, 2021 Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2021).
67 S.B. 2313, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2021).
68 H.B. 404, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2021).
69 H.B. 1671, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2021).
70 H.B. 617, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2021).
71 S.B. 685, 2021 Reg. Sess. (S.C. 2021).
72 H.B. 1351, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Tenn. 2021).
73 H.B. 125, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Md. 2021).
74 S.B. 248, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Mont. 2021).
75 A.B. 254, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Nev. 2021).
76 S.B. 48, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2021).
77 S.B. 1385, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2021).
78 S.B. 646, 2020 Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2020); H.B. 404, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2021); S.B. 2313, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Miss.
2021); H.B. 617, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2021); S.B. 94, 2021 Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2021); S.B. 1385, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Tex.
2021).
79 How Can I tell When a Session Law (Chaptered Bill) Becomes Effective?, ARIZ. STATE LEGISLATURE,
https://www.azleg.gov/faq/#:~:text=The%20general%20effective%20date%20for,are%20provisions%20for%20extendi
ng%20it (last visited Apr. 8, 2021) (explaining that the “general effective date for bills is 91 days after session is over.
It is unpredictable in determining the date for session to end. Although the rules allow for a 100-day session, there are
provisions for extending it”); Important Deadlines – First Regular Session, 55th Legislature, 2021, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES STATE OF ARIZONA (Dec. 1, 2020), https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/housedeadlines.pdf (explaining
that regular sessions of the Arizona Legislature “shall be adjourned . . . no later than the Saturday of the week in which
Congressional Research Service

7

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

January 1, 2022,80 South Carolina’s law goes into effect on July 1, 2022 (or sooner, if the NCAA
or other similar governing body implements similar rules),81 and Michigan’s law goes into effect
on December 31, 2022.82 The California, Colorado, New Jersey, Maryland, and Montana laws
will not take effect until at least 2023.83 Two states—Nebraska and Oklahoma—allow for schools
to implement NIL measures at any time, but no later than July 1, 2023.84
Much like the Fair Pay to Play Act, all of the currently enacted state laws generally require that
institutions of higher education or athletic organizations, such as the NCAA, allow student
athletes to receive compensation for the use of their NIL—including, for example, allowing paid
endorsements and sponsorships—without losing eligibility to participate in intercollegiate
athletics.85 There are, however, some variations among the states’ approaches to NIL
compensation. For example, consider only those states whose new laws become effective on July
1, 2021: under Georgia’s law, schools can require student athletes with NIL deals contribute some
of their NIL money to a pool that would be distributed to all athletes.86 Alabama’s law establishes
the Alabama Collegiate Athletics Commission that would develop rules and recommendations “to
maintain the fairness and integrity of amateur collegiate athletics.”87 The law also prohibits
student athletes from making NIL deals that involve their school’s licensed or registered logos
without the school’s permission.88 New Mexico’s law prohibits any school from enforcing rules
that would affect an athlete’s eligibility if the athlete receives “food, shelter, medical expenses or
insurance from a third party.”89 The law also mandates that athletes can wear any footwear of
choice during official team activities.90 Florida, Georgia, and Texas’s laws require some amount
of financial literacy education for student athletes.91
NCAA Proposed Bylaw Changes
Shortly after California passed the Fair Pay to Play Act, the NCAA’s Federal and State
Legislation Working Group presented recommendations related to the NIL compensation issue to
the NCAA Board of Governors.92 The NCAA Board of Governors voted to “permit students
participating in athletics the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name, image and/or

the 100th day (April 20) of a session falls,” which is anticipated to be April 24, 2021).
80 H.B. 1671, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2021); H.B. 1351, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Tenn. 2021); A.B. 254, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Nev.
2021).
81 S.B. 685, 2021 Reg. Sess. (S.C. 2021).
82 See H.B. 5217, 2020 Reg. Sess. (Mich. 2021).
83 Zachary Zagger, 4 Key Issues As States Tackle College Athlete Pay, LAW 360 (Oct. 9, 2020),
https://www.law360.com/articles/1318247/4-key-issues-as-states-tackle-college-athlete-pay; H.B. 125, 2021 Reg. Sess.
(Md. 2021); S.B. 248, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Mont. 2021).
84 L.B. 962, 2020 Reg. Sess. (Neb. 2020); S.B. 48, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2021).
85 Zagger, supra note 83. See also H.B. 5217, 2020 Reg. Sess. (Mich. 2021); S.B. 1296, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2021).
86 H.B. 617, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2021).
87 H.B. 404, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2021).
88 Id.
89 S.B. 94, 2021 Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2021).
90 Id.
91 S.B. 646, 2020 Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2020); H.B. 617, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2021); S.B. 1385, 2021 Reg. Sess. (Tex.
2021).
92 See NAT’L COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASS’N, REPORT OF THE NCAA BOARD OF GOVERNORS OCTOBER 29, 2019 MEETING
4 (2019), https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/ncaa/exec_boardgov/Oct2019BOG_Report.pdf [hereinafter
NCAA NIL Report].
Congressional Research Service

8

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

likeness in a manner consistent with the values and beliefs of intercollegiate athletics,” and
directed the NCAA’s three divisions to begin considering bylaw modifications.93
In October 2020, the NCAA Division I Council approved an updated draft of proposed NCAA
NIL bylaw amendments.94 The proposed changes would amend NCAA bylaws to generally allow
student athletes compensation for a commercial, nonprofit, or charitable entity’s use of their
NIL.95 According to the NCAA, the proposed measures—if adopted—would:
 Allow student athletes to use their NIL to promote camps and clinics, private
lessons, their own products and services, and commercial products or services.
 Allow student athletes to be paid for their autographs and personal appearances.
 Allow student athletes to crowdfund for nonprofits or charitable organizations,
catastrophic events and family hardships, as well as for educational expenses not
covered by cost of attendance.
 Allow student athletes the opportunity to use professional advice and marketing
assistance regarding NIL activities, as well as professional representation in
contract negotiations related to name, image and likeness activities, with some
restrictions.
 Prohibit schools from being involved in the development, operation or promotion
of a student athlete’s business activity, unless the activity is developed as part of
a student’s coursework or academic program.
 Prohibit schools from arranging or securing endorsement opportunities for
student-athletes.96
The proposed NIL bylaw amendments include some restrictions. For example, the proposed
bylaws would not permit student athletes to use institutional marks in any promotional activities,
and student athletes could not participate in promotional activities that conflict with NCAA
policies (such as policies addressing sports wagering or banned substances).97 Institutions would
also retain the right to prohibit promotional activities that conflict with “institutional values, as
defined by the institution,” or with “existing institutional sponsorship arrangements.”98 The
proposed amendments also include disclosure requirements, which were designed, at least in part,
to “monitor and minimize impermissible booster activity and recruiting inducements,” because in
many cases, “boosters may be the most likely sources of opportunities for student-athletes to
engage in name, image and likeness activities,” and “[s]tudent-athletes should be permitted take
[of] advantage legitimate opportunities, even if the source of the opportunity comes from a
booster of the institution.”99 The proposed bylaw amendments were first scheduled for a vote

93 Id. at 3. The NCAA’s three divisions are Division I, Division II and Division III. Our Three Divisions, NCAA,
https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/ncaa-101/our-three-divisions (last visited May 3, 2021).
94 DI Council Introduces Name, Image and Likeness Concepts Into Legislative Cycle, NCAA (Oct. 14, 2020),
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-council-introduces-name-image-and-likeness-concepts-
legislative-cycle.
95 Id.
96 Id.
97 ANNE ROHLMAN & LEELAND ZELLER, 2020-21 NCAA DIVISION I COUNCIL-GOVERNANCE PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED
LEGISLATION 8 (2020), https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/reports/getReport/90001 [hereinafter NCAA Proposed
Amendments].
98 Id.
99 Id. at 13, 17.
Congressional Research Service

9

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

before the Division I Council in January 2021;100 however, the Division I Council postponed the
vote after NCAA President Mark Emmert received a letter from the Department of Justice’s
(DOJ’s) antitrust division that suggested the DOJ may object to new NIL rules on antitrust
grounds.101 In its statement, the Division I Council did not set a timeline for a future vote on the
issue, but commented that it remained “fully committed to modernizing Division I rules in ways
that benefit all student-athletes.”102 Emmert recently reiterated his commitment to adopting new
“loosened” NCAA NIL rules in time for the 2021-2022 school year.103
According to some accounts, the NCAA’s proposed NIL bylaw amendments appear to permit
more NIL compensation to student athletes than existing bylaws, but would still restrict NIL
compensation more than recently enacted state laws.104 For example, the NCAA has proposed a
bylaw amendment that would allow an institution to prohibit an athlete from involvement in an
NIL activity that would conflict with an “existing institutional sponsorship arrangement.”105
According to some commentators, this amendment could be at odds with many provisions in
newly enacted state laws that prohibit a school from preventing student athletes from earning NIL
compensation for any commercial purpose when the athlete is not engaged in team activities.106
Some lawmakers, moreover, have expressed concern that the NCAA’s proposed bylaw changes
would not provide enough opportunity for student athletes to maximize the use of their NIL.107
On June 28, 2021, the NCAA Division I Council recommended that the Division I Board of
Directors adopt an “interim” policy that would suspend amateurism rules related to NIL
compensation.108 According to the NCAA, this temporary action would remain in place until
federal legislation is enacted or until the NCAA adopts new NIL-related rules.109 The temporary
policy provides that student athletes may engage in NIL activities that are consistent with the law
of their school’s states.110 Student athletes in states without NIL laws may engage in NIL-type

100 Id. at iii.
101 Michelle Brutlag Hosick, Division I Council Tables Proposals on Name, Image, Likeness and Transfers, NCAA
(Jan. 11, 2021), https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-i-council-tables-proposals-name-
image-likeness-and-transfers; Alan Blinder, N.C.A.A. President Seeks Delay on Vote to Let Students Profit from Fame,
N.Y. TIMES, (Jan. 9, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/sports/ncaabasketball/ncaa-delays-vote-athlete-
endorsements.html.
102 Hosick, supra note 101.
103 Steve Berkowtiz, NCAA President Mark Emmert to Meet with Lawmakers as Some States Push to Pay College
Athletes, USA TODAY (May 8, 2021), https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2021/05/08/mark-emmert-meet-
lawmakers-amid-pay-college-athletes/5007533001/.
104 Id.
105 NCAA Proposed Amendments, supra note 97 at 8.
106 See, e.g., Fair Pay to Play Act, S.B. 206, 2019 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2019) (“A team contract of a postsecondary
educational institution’s athletic program shall not prevent a student athlete from using the athlete’s name, image, or
likeness for a commercial purpose when the athlete is not engaged in official team activities.”); L.B. 962, 2020 Reg.
Sess. (Neb. 2020) (“No team contract shall prevent a student-athlete from receiving compensation for the use of such
student-athlete's name, image, and likeness rights or athletic reputation when the student-athlete is not engaged in
official team activities.”). See also Steve Berkowitz, NCAA Unveils Proposed Rules Changes Related to Athletes’
Name, Image and Likeness, USA TODAY (Nov. 13, 2020),
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2020/11/13/ncaa-nil-name-image-likeness-proposal/6281507002/.
107 See Berkowtiz, supra note 106.
108 DI Council Recommends DI Board Adopt Name, Image and Likeness Policy, NCAA (June 28, 2021),
https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-council-recommends-di-board-adopt-name-image-and-
likeness-policy.
109 Id.
110 Id.
Congressional Research Service

10

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

activity without violating NCAA rules.111 The policy also allows for student athletes to use
professional services for NIL activities, and requires student athletes to report NIL activities
consistent with state law or school requirements.112 According to some commentators, this
temporary policy indicates that the NCAA has concerns that “virtually any restriction” may draw
legal challenges based on the Supreme Court’s Alston decision.113
Congressional Legislative Proposals
Amidst the evolving legal and legislative landscape surrounding the NIL issue, the NCAA
continues to encourage Congress to take action. At a July 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing, NCAA President Mark Emmert urged Members of Congress to pass federal NIL
compensation legislation.114 Emmert emphasized that 36 states had either passed or introduced
NIL legislation, and argued that “a patchwork of different laws from different states will make
unattainable the goal of providing a fair and level playing field—let alone the essential
requirement of a common playing field—for our schools and nearly half a million student-
athletes nationwide.”115 According to some reports, the NCAA presented Members of Congress
with its own proposal for federal NIL legislation, referred to as the Intercollegiate Amateur Sports
Act of 2020.116 Reports indicated that the Intercollegiate Amateur Sports Act provided Congress
an overview of the features the NCAA wants included in any federal NIL legislation.117 For
example, according to commentators, the draft legislation addressed the NCAA’s concern that
recently enacted state laws may have unintended effects such as threatening gender equity in
athletic programs, creating tax liability for athletes, creating an employer/employee relationship
between colleges and student athletes, and inviting corruption on to college campuses.118
According to commentators, the draft legislation included a preemption provision, an antitrust
exemption, and a provision stating that no amateur intercollegiate athlete is considered an

111 Id.
112 Id.
113 Steve Berkowitz, NCAA Council Recommends Name, Image and Likeness Policies Should Be Up To Schools in
States Without Law Beginning Thursday, USA TODAY (June 28, 2021),
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2021/06/28/name-image-likeness-ncaa-wants-schools-set-rules-if-state-
didnt/7785176002/.
114 Emily Giambalvo, As the NCAA Asks Congress for Help on NIL Legislation, Lawmakers Want More Rights for
College Athletes, WASHINGTON POST (July 23, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/07/23/ncaa-asks-
congress-help-nil-legislation-lawmakers-want-more-rights-college-athletes/; Protecting the Integrity of College
Athletics: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (2020) (statement of Dr. Mark Emmert,
President, National Collegiate Athletic Association),
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Emmert%20Testimony.pdf [hereinafter Emmert Testimony].
115 Emmert Testimony, supra note 114.
116 Ross Dellenger, NCAA Presents Congress With Bold Proposal for NIL Legislation, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED (July 31,
2020), https://www.si.com/college/2020/07/31/ncaa-sends-congress-nil-legislation-proposal. The NCAA “Power 5”
conferences also submitted proposed legislation that includes similar provisions but has more specific restrictions,
including restricting student athletes from signing endorsement deals until they complete one semester of college,
allowing schools to prohibit certain NIL deals, and requiring that all NIL contracts between businesses/agents and
student athletes be made public. See Ross Dellenger, Proposed NCAA NIL Legislation is a Restrictive First Step for
Student-Athletes, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED (July 17, 2020), https://www.si.com/college/2020/07/17/ncaa-proposed-name-
image-likeness-legislation-student-athletes.
117 Ross Dellenger, NCAA Presents Congress With Bold Proposal for NIL Legislation, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED (July 31,
2020), https://www.si.com/college/2020/07/31/ncaa-sends-congress-nil-legislation-proposal.
118 Id.
Congressional Research Service

11

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

employee of an institution.119 In a June 2021 hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, Emmert reiterated the need for federal legislation on the NIL
issue.120 He outlined several elements the NCAA proposes should be included in federal
legislation, including the preemption of state laws, safeguarding the nonemployment status of
student athletes, Title IX protections, and a “limited safe harbor protection” from litigation.121
Student athlete advocate organizations, such as the National College Players Association (NCPA),
have also expressed support for federal action on a range of student athlete issues, including NIL
compensation.122 The NCPA, however, opposes most of the NCAA’s legislative proposals,
including preemption provisions and antitrust exemptions,123 and has offered its own model
legislation regarding NIL compensation.124 Among other things, the NCPA legislation would
make it illegal for a higher education institution to uphold or implement any rule that would
revoke eligibility for a student athlete who receives food, shelter, medical expenses, or insurance
from a third party; or for earning compensation from a third party as a result of the use of the
athlete’s NIL.125 The NCPA legislation would also make it illegal for a higher education
institution to revoke eligibility for a student athlete who obtains representation in relation to
contracts or legal matters.126 The NCPA model bill would also prohibit student athlete NIL
compensation during official team activities without approval of the postsecondary educational
institution, and would prohibit student athletes from receiving pay as inducement to attend a
specific institution.127
Legislative Proposals from the 116th Congress
Several bills relating to various student athlete issues—including NIL compensation—were
introduced in the 116th Congress. As the discussion below illustrates, each bill would have
offered a unique approach to the issue and provided varying ranges of restrictions or regulation.
For example, one bill attempted to regulate the NIL issue by using the tax code to incentivize
organizations like the NCAA to allow NIL compensation.128 Other bills would have conditioned
federal funding under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) on higher education institutions
allowing student athletes to profit from their NIL without jeopardizing the student athletes’
eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletic competition.129 Some bills would have granted
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to enforce new laws that would prohibit
higher education institutions and athletic organizations such as the NCAA from implementing

119 Id.
120 Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of Dr.
Mark Emmert, President, National Collegiate Athletic Association),
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/B28D0810-54D7-4C53-8058-B04A8ED4684B.
121 Id.
122 Protecting the Integrity of College Athletics: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (2020)
(statement of Ramogi Huma, NCPA Executive Director),
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Huma%20Testimony.pdf.
123 Id.
124 NAT’L COLL. PLAYERS ASS’N, MODEL LEGISLATION – NAME, IMAGE, LIKENESS PAY,
https://www.ncpanow.org/solutions-and-resources/model-legislation (last visited May 3, 2021).
125 Id.
126 Id.
127 Id.
128 H.R. 1804 (116th Cong. 2019).
129 H.R. 2036 (116th Cong. 2019), H.R. 2672 (116th Cong. 2019), H.R. 8382 (116th Cong. 2020).
Congressional Research Service

12

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

certain policies that would restrict a student athlete’s ability to profit from their NIL.130 Several
proposals would have created commissions that would make recommendations to Congress on
various issues related to college athletics, including NIL compensation.131 At least two bills would
have provided an antitrust exemption,132 and several included preemption clauses.133 Two others
would have created independent entities that would create guidelines for various student athlete
issues including NIL compensation.134 Other themes seen throughout the proposed bills included
regulations on boosters, disclosure requirements, restrictions on NIL agreements that conflict with
institution agreements/contracts, and restrictions on agent representation. Relevant legislation
introduced in the 116th Congress is summarized below in chronological order.135 Because the 116th
Congress adjourned on January 3, 2021, none of the following bills is pending action.
H.R. 1804—The Student-Athlete Equity Act
Deemed by some the “free market option,”136 the Student-Athlete Equity Act would have
amended Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides tax exempt status to
“corporations . . . organized and operated exclusively to foster national or international amateur
sports competition.”137 The Act would have amended the definition of a “qualified amateur sports
organization”138 to exclude “an organization that substantially restricts a student athlete from
using, or being reasonably compensated for the third party use of, the name, image, or likeness of
such student athlete.”139 The Act would have, in effect, stripped organizations such as the NCAA
of their tax-exempt status if they substantially restricted NIL compensation opportunities for
student athletes, but would not have created any further restrictions on how student athletes are
compensated for the use of their NILs.
H.R. 2036—NCAA Act of 2019
The National Collegiate Athletics Act of 2019 (NCAA Act of 2019), would have conditioned
federal funds provided to higher education institutions under the HEA on compliance with the
Act’s provisions. The Act would have provided general protections for student athletes, subject to
some limitations.140 For example, under the Act, higher education institutions would not have
been able to restrict, or be members of an intercollegiate athletic association (such as the NCAA),
that restricted, “amateur athletes from participating in amateur sports,” unless the restrictions
related to performance enhancing drugs, controlled substances, educational requirements, and

130 S. 4004 (116th Cong. 2020), H.R. 8382 (116th Cong. 2020), S. 5003 (116th Cong. 2020).
131 H.R. 2672 (116th Cong. 2019), H.R. 5528 (116th Cong. 2019), H.R. 8382 (116th Cong. 2020).
132 S. 4004 (116th Cong. 2020), S. 5003 (116th Cong. 2020).
133 S. 4004 (116th Cong. 2020), H.R. 8382 (116th Cong. 2020), S. 5003 (116th Cong. 2020).
134 S. 5003 (116th Cong. 2020); S. 5062 (116th Cong. 2020).
135 The following includes summaries of bills that discuss student athlete and NIL issues at length based on a search of
legislation introduced in the 116th Congress, but may not be a comprehensive list of every bill that may discuss similar
issues.
136 Dan Murphy, Can Congress Help the NCAA Find NIL Consistency?, ESPN (July 1, 2020),
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/29392144/congress-working-multiple-legislative-options-solve-ncaa-
nil-issue.
137 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).
138 Id. § 501(j)(2).
139 H.R. 1804 (116th Cong. 2019).
140 H.R. 2036 (116th Cong. 2019).
Congressional Research Service

13

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

student code violations.141 This provision effectively would have required higher education
institutions to allow student athletes to earn compensation from the use of their NIL. The Act
would have also set requirements for awarding and revoking scholarships, including allowing
scholarship award amounts only up to the cost of attendance of the awarding institution.142 The
Act would have also required higher education institutions to ensure student athletes were
provided medical insurance.143
The NCAA Act of 2019 also included a provision governing collective bargaining agreements in
professional sports.144 This provision would have required that any collective bargaining
agreement between a professional sports league and a professional players’ association must
allow “adults to enter the collective bargaining agreement at the same level as other adults with
the same experience level in such professional sports league.”145 This provision would have
effectively ended the “one and done” rule,146 an eligibility rule contained within the National
Basketball Association (NBA) and players’ union collective bargaining agreement, which
effectively prohibits high school players from entering the NBA draft immediately after
graduation.147
H.R. 2672—The NCAA Act
The National Collegiate Athletics Accountability Act (NCAA Act) would have addressed NIL
issues in the context of a broader program to impose certain requirements for higher education
institutions that have intercollegiate athletic programs and are members of an athletic
association.148 The proposed legislation stated that as a condition of receiving federal funds under
the HEA, a higher education institution could only be a member of an athletic association (such
as the NCAA) so long as the association (1) required annual concussion testing as a precondition
to student athlete participation in contact sports, (2) required certain due process procedures for
alleged violations of association policies, (3) required athletic-related student aid to be guaranteed
for the duration of a student athlete’s attendance at the institution, and (4) did not have a policy
that restricted the ability of institutions to pay stipends to student athletes.149
The NCAA Act would have also established the Presidential Commission on Intercollegiate
Athletics, which would have reviewed and analyzed issues related to intercollegiate athletics.
These issues included, for example, student athlete academic success, recruitment and retention
of student athletes, oversight and governance practices. The proposed Commission would have
also reviewed the financing of intercollegiate athletics, including “rules related to earnings and
benefits by student athletes, including the possibility of commercial compensation for the use of
the NIL of student athletes and whether a student athlete may retain a personal representative to

141 Id., § 11.
142 Id., § 12.
143 Id., § 15.
144 Id., § 21.
145 Id.
146 Al Lawson Takes Aim at NCAA Treatment of Student Athletes, (Apr. 2, 2019), https://lawson.house.gov/media/in-
the-news/al-lawson-takes-aim-ncaa-treatment-student-athletes.
147 Michael McCann, Examining What a Change to the NBA’s One-and-Done Rule Could Mean for All Involved,
SPORTS ILLUSTRATED (March 3, 2019), https://www.si.com/nba/2019/03/03/legal-analysis-change-age-eligibility-rule-
one-and-done.
148 H.R. 2672 (116th Cong. 2019).
149 Id., § 2.
Congressional Research Service

14

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

negotiate on behalf of the student athlete.”150 The commission would have consisted of 17
members appointed by congressional leadership, and would have had the power to hold hearings
and access necessary information from other government agencies.151 The Act would have
required the commission to issue a report on its findings and recommendations to the President of
the United States and various Members of congressional leadership within one year after the date
of the Commission’s first meeting.152
H.R. 5528—CACIA Act of 2019
The Congressional Advisory Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics Act of 2019 (CACIA Act)
would have established a Congressional Advisory Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics “to
investigate the relationship between higher education institutions and intercollegiate athletic
programs.”153 The proposed commission would have reviewed policies with respect to student
athlete academic and athletic success that are maintained by athletic governance associations
(such as the NCAA) and higher education institutions.154 The Act would have required a review
of policies that cover a broad range of issues related to “highly commercialized intercollegiate
athletic programs.”155 These issues included academic standards, whether there was adequate
faculty oversight to ensure student athletes receive a quality education, athletic-related injuries
and athlete access to health care programs, parity between student athletes and non-student
athletes in academic and employment opportunities, recruitment, student athlete financial
assistance, and funding for intercollegiate athletic programs.156 On the specific issue of student
athlete compensation, the Act would have required that the commission review the interaction
between NCAA and institution policies related to “employment, earnings and benefits, and
personal representation by marketing agents of student athletes, including commercial
compensation for the use of the name, image, or likeness of student athletes,” as well as the
impact of federal and state judicial decisions that affect “compensation for student athletes” and
“the right of student athletes to receive workplace protections.”157
The commission would have consisted of 17 members appointed by congressional leadership and
would have had the power to hold hearings, hear evidence, and issue subpoenas.158 The Act would
have also required the commission to issue a report to Congress within two years that would
summarize its findings on the listed issues and make recommendations based on its review of the
findings.159
S. 4004—Fairness in Collegiate Athletics Act
The Fairness in Collegiate Athletics Act would have directed any intercollegiate athletic
association—defined as the NCAA, any successor organization to the NCAA, or any organization

150 Id., § 3.
151 Id.
152 Id.
153 H.R. 5528 (116th Cong. 2019).
154 Id., § 3.
155 Id., § 2.
156 Id.
157 Id., § 3.
158 Id.
159 Id.
Congressional Research Service

15

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

the FTC deems to be similar to the NCAA—to establish certain polices related to NIL
compensation no later than June 30, 2021.160 These policies must have allowed student athletes to
earn compensation from third parties for the use of their NIL and permit student athletes to obtain
professional representation in regard to the use of their NIL within the bounds of existing law as
established in the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA).161 The Act would have
also required intercollegiate athletic associations to establish rules and programs for the
administration of the new NIL policies that ensured the appropriate recruitment of student athletes
while and preserving their amateur status.162 Under the Act, intercollegiate athletic associations
would have also been required to adopt reporting policies, requiring student athletes to report any
NIL compensation to their college and the intercollegiate athletic association.163
The Act would have granted enforcement power to the FTC, deeming any violation of the Act to
be an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act).164
The Act shielded both athletic associations and education institutions from any “cause of action”
based on “the adoption or enforcement of a policy, rule, or program established under section 3,”
except as provided under the FTC Act.165 Some commentators described this as an “antitrust
exemption,”166 because it would have effectively protected the NCAA from certain legal
challenges to rules adopted as part of the Act, including similar challenges to those brought in the
O’Bannon litigation.167 As mentioned above, the NCAA has asked Congress to include an
antitrust exemption in any federal legislation on the NIL issue,168 but some commentators have
argued that this would give the NCAA “unbounded power to restrain athletes’ fair market rights,
without facing legal repercussions.”169
The Act also included a preemption provision that stated that the Act would supersede any state
law “related to permitting or prohibiting a student athlete to receive compensation from an
institution of higher education or a third party as a result of such athlete’s performance or
participation in postsecondary athletics.”170
H.R. 8382—The Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act
The Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act aimed to provide student athletes with opportunities
to profit from the use of their NIL without sacrificing eligibility in intercollegiate athletics.171 The
Act would have prohibited any covered athletic organization or higher education institution from

160 S. 4004 (116th Cong. 2020).
161 Id., § 3. SPARTA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7801–7807.
162 Id. See also Rubio Introduces Legislation to Address Name, Image, Likeness in College Sports (June 18, 2020),
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/6/rubio-introduces-legislation-to-address-name-image-likeness-
in-college-sports.
163 S. 4004 § 3.
164 Id., § 4.
165 Id.
166 See Murphy, supra note 136.
167 See id.
168 See Giambalvo, supra note 114.
169 Thaddeus Kennedy, NCAA and an Antitrust Exemption: The Death of College Athletes’ Rights, HARV. J. SPORTS &
ENT. L., (Aug. 31, 2020), https://harvardjsel.com/2020/08/ncaa-and-an-antitrust-exemption-the-death-of-college-
athletes-rights/.
170 S. 4004, § 5 (116th Cong. 2020).
171 See H.R. 8382 (116th Cong. 2020).
Congressional Research Service

16

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

revoking intercollegiate athletic eligibility because a student athlete enters into an endorsement
contract or an agency contract.172 The Act would have also withheld federal funding under the
HEA from higher education institutions that had policies that affected student athlete scholarship
eligibility for entering into an endorsement or agency contract.173 Higher education institutions
would have also been ineligible for HEA funds if they directly compensated students for the use
of their NIL.174 The Act, however, would have allowed athletic organizations or higher education
institutions to prohibit student athletes from entering into endorsement contracts involving certain
industries, such as tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances, adult entertainment, or casinos/entities
that sponsor gambling.175 Athletic organizations or higher education institutions could also have
prohibited student athletes from wearing sponsored attire or gear during athletic competition or
university-sponsored events.176
The Act would have delegated enforcement authority to the FTC, providing that any violation of
the Act would be considered an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of the FTC Act.177
The Act would not have provided an explicit “antitrust exemption” like the proposed Fairness in
Collegiate Athletics Act or Collegiate Athlete Compensation Rights Act (discussed below).178 It
specified, however, that a violation of the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act would not have
been a separate basis for an antitrust claim.
Beyond NIL issues, the Act also proposed amendments to SPARTA,179 including adding a
definition of the term “booster”—or “an individual . . . or an organization . . . that provides
substantial financial assistance or services to the athletic program of an institution of higher
education or promotes a team or athletic program of an institution of higher education for such
individual’s or organization’s own substantial financial interest.”180 The proposed SPARTA
amendments would have made it illegal for boosters to offer or provide money or things of value
as inducement for a student athlete to enroll or remain at a school, and included reporting
requirements for student athletes to notify their school when they enter into an agency contract.181
The Act would have also mandated the creation of a Covered Athletic Organization Commission
tasked with making recommendations to Congress about the implementation of NIL rules,
processes for certifying or recognizing credentialed athlete agents, the establishment of an
independent dispute resolution process for disputes between student athletes and athletic
organizations or higher education institutions, and any additional categories of endorsement
contracts that should be prohibited.182
Also of note, the Act included a preemption clause that would have effectively preempted other
state legislation that governs a student athlete’s ability to enter into an endorsement or agency

172 Id., § 2.
173 Id., § 4.
174 Id.
175 Id., § 2.
176 Id.
177 Id., § 2.
178 S. 4004, § 4 (116th Cong. 2020); S. 5003, § 9 (116th Cong. 2020).
179 15 U.S.C. §§ 7801 et seq.
180 H.R. 8382, § 5.
181 Id.
182 Id., § 3.
Congressional Research Service

17

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

contract.183 The Act also explicitly stated that nothing in the Act was intended to affect student
athlete employment status and included a sense of Congress that higher education institutions
should develop financial literacy programs for student athletes, and that the FTC should
investigate each claim filed under SPARTA.184
S. 5003—Collegiate Athlete Compensation Rights Act
The Collegiate Athlete Compensation Rights Act sought to protect the rights of student athletes
while providing transparency and accountability in student athlete NIL agreements.185 The Act
would have required athletic associations, conferences, and higher education institutions to permit
student athletes to earn market value compensation for the use of their NIL186 and to obtain
agents187 for matters related to NIL compensation without jeopardizing their intercollegiate
athletic eligibility or scholarships.188 The Act would have provided protections for student athletes
by permitting rescission of NIL agreements for student athletes who no longer participated in
intercollegiate athletics, and by requiring access to educational resources with respect to earning
NIL compensation.189 The Act would have prohibited higher education institutions from making
payments of “covered compensation” to student athletes and their families, and would have
prohibited third party licensees from entering into NIL agreements with student athletes if the
agreement conflicted with an existing contract, rule, or regulation of the student athlete’s
institution, with some exceptions.190 Under the Act, however, athletic associations, conferences,
and higher education institutions would have been permitted to enact rules that prohibit certain
NIL agreements, such as prohibiting (1) boosters from providing NIL compensation as
inducement to attend an institution, (2) student athletes from entering into NIL agreements before
they are enrolled at an institution, or (3) NIL agreements that endorse “gambling, tobacco or
alcohol products, adult entertainment, or any other product or service that is reasonably
considered to be inconsistent with the values of an institution.”191 Athletic associations and
conferences would have been able to create rules consistent with the Act and enforce the rules by,

183 Id., § 6.
184 Id., § 7, § 8.
185 S. 5003 (116th Cong. 2020).
186 The Act defines “enroll” to mean “to receive passing grades, as determined by the applicable institution, for
completing courses of instruction at such institution comprising not less than 12 percent of the credits required for
graduation from the institution.” Id., § 2. A provision within the Act provides that “[a]n association, a conference, or an
institution may prohibit a student athlete from entering into a name, image, and likeness agreement with a third-party
licensee relating to the name, image, or likeness of the student athlete . . . before the date on which the student athlete
enrolls at an institution.” Id., § 4. According to some commentators, allowing only a student athlete who is “enrolled”
at an institution to earn NIL compensation may allow for “a delay in how quickly athletes can gain from their NIL
rights, prohibiting NIL opportunities until a college athlete has completed at least 12% of credits required for
graduation.” See Michael McCann, Wicker’s NIL Senate Bill Allows Agents for Athletes and Liability Shields for
Schools, SPORTICO (Dec. 14, 2020), https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2020/roger-wicker-name-image-likeness-
1234618233/.
187 The Act sets forth various regulations regarding the use of agents, including, for example, requiring the agent to be
certified and prohibiting agent representation before the student athlete is enrolled at an institution. See S. 5003 (116th
Cong. 2020) §§ 4-5.
188 Id., § 3.
189 Id.
190 Id., § 4.
191 Id.
Congressional Research Service

18

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

for example, revoking a student athlete’s eligibility, or withholding revenue distribution
payments192 from institutions who are not in compliance.193
The Act would have granted enforcement authority to the FTC, providing that a violation of the
Act would have been considered a violation of the FTC Act.194 However, the Act would have also
required the FTC to identify a private, independent, self-regulatory, nonprofit entity that would
have developed and enforced rules and standards with respect to NIL agreements and
compensation, booster involvement in NIL agreements, and guidelines for certifying agents.195
This nonprofit entity would have also compiled—and made publicly available—information
about NIL agreements, would have been tasked with creating a website that features information
about the legal and business concepts involved in NIL agreements, and would have been required
to create a student athlete health and safety committee to help develop standards to prevent
serious injury and abuse of student athletes.196
The Act also included provisions seen in other legislation, including provisions that explicitly
stated that student athletes are not to be considered employees of their institutions,197 an antitrust
exemption,198 and a preemption clause.199
S. 5062—College Athletes Bill of Rights
The College Athlete Bill of Rights covered an array of issues related to protecting the rights of
college athletes.200 Like many of the other bills, the Act sought to establish NIL rights for student
athletes, including the ability to market their NIL both individually and as a group, and provided
student athletes the right to hire representation for NIL compensation matters.201 Also like many
of the other bills, the Act included a provision that would have allowed limits on the industries
that student athletes may contract with, and a provision that would have allowed higher education
institutions to require student athletes to wear certain apparel during mandatory team activities.202
Unique to this Act, however, was a provision that would have prohibited higher education
institutions from discouraging or prohibiting a student athlete from wearing the footwear of his or
her choice during mandatory or non-mandatory team activities.203 When a student athlete entered
into an NIL agreement with a third party, the Act would have allowed higher education
institutions to enter into a separate contract with the same third party for the use of, for example,

192 Revenue distribution payments may refer to the portion of NCAA revenue that is returned directly to NCAA
member conferences and institutions. See Distributions, NCAA,
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/distributions (last visited May 3, 2021).
193 S. 5003, § 8.
194 Id., § 7.
195 Id., § 6.
196 Id.
197 Id., § 4.
198 Id., § 9.
199 Id., § 10.
200 S. 5062 (116th Cong. 2020). See also Billy Witz, Bill Offers New College Sports Model: Give Athletes a Cut of the
Profits, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 17, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/17/sports/ncaafootball/college-athlete-bill-of-
rights.html (noting that according to Senator Booker, if the bill seems “tilted toward athletes,” it is because it is the
“only bill so far to be crafted from the athletes’ perspective”).
201 S. 5062, § 3 (116th Cong. 2020).
202 Id.
203 Id.
Congressional Research Service

19

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

the institution’s logo, so long as the third party directly compensated the student athlete pursuant
to their agreement.204 The Act provided that NIL compensation was not considered financial aid,
and that financial aid or intercollegiate athletic eligibility could not have been affected or revoked
if a student athlete entered into an endorsement contract or hired an agent for NIL compensation
purposes.205 Beyond NIL compensation, the Act would have also created opportunities for
revenue sharing. Higher education institutions would have been required to share profits from
revenue-generating sports with the athletes who play those sports, after deducting the cost of
scholarships.206 The revenue-sharing provision was unique to this legislation and was considered,
according to some commentators, “one of the most aggressive proposals in the bill.”207
Beyond NIL matters, the Act would have also allowed student athletes to receive expenses for
transportation, room, or board for friends or family members during any period in which the
student athlete is addressing a physical or mental health concern or participating in intercollegiate
athletics competition, as well as other necessities, including food, shelter, medical coverage, and
medical expenses; or tuition, fees, books, transportation, or any other incidental expense that is
not otherwise provided by an higher education institution.208 The Act would have also eliminated
transfer penalties,209 and would have permitted student athletes to enter professional sports drafts
without jeopardizing future intercollegiate eligibility so long as they did not receive compensation
from a professional sports league.210
The Act would have provided additional protections for student athletes, including prohibiting an
higher education institution or organizations such as the NCAA from negotiating NIL contracts,
prohibiting higher education institutions from imposing speech restrictions on student athletes
that did not apply equally to other members of the student body, prohibiting schools and
organizations such as the NCAA from colluding to limit the amount a student athlete may receive
under and endorsement contract, and prohibiting schools from cutting athletic programs without
first exploring other options such as reducing expenses and salaries.211 Also unique compared to
other bills, the Act contained provisions that addressed student athlete health. The Act would have
required the Department of Health and Human Services to promulgate health, wellness, and
safety guidelines for intercollegiate athletics that addressed matters such as cardiac health,
concussion and traumatic brain injuries, illegal performance enhancers, substance abuse, mental
health, and sexual assault, among others.212 The Act would have also required higher education
institutions to create a medical trust fund to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred by

204 Id.
205 Id.
206 Id., § 5.
207 Ross Dellenger, Inside the Landmark College Athletes Bill of Rights Being Introduced in Congress, SPORTS
ILLUSTRATED (Dec. 17, 2020) https://www.si.com/college/2020/12/17/athlete-bill-of-rights-congress-ncaa-football
(noting that revenue sharing is a move that the NCAA and its members “firmly stand against.”).
208 S. 5062, § 3 (116th Cong. 2020).
209 In April 2021, the Division I Board of Directors ratified the adoption of legislation expanding a one-time transfer
exception to all student athletes. The now-effective rule allows student athletes to compete immediately after one
transfer to another higher education institution during their period of intercollegiate athletic eligibility. See Michelle
Brutlag Hosick, Division I Board of Directors, Presidential Forum discuss sustainability, NCAA (Apr. 28, 2021),
https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-i-board-directors-presidential-forum-discuss-
sustainability?division=d1.
210 Id.
211 Id.
212 Id., § 7.
Congressional Research Service

20

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

student athletes for sports-related injuries for up to five years after athletic eligibility.213 Under
this provision, the Act would have required higher education institutions to provide student
athletes the opportunity for physicals and independent medical second opinions for the purpose of
diagnosing sports-related injuries, and would have required that school athletic training and
medical staff operate independently of school athletic departments.214
Also unique to this legislation, the Act emphasized student athlete educational outcomes, and
would have created new requirements regarding scholarships and coursework. Under the Act,
higher education institutions would have been required to provide student athletes with
scholarships until the athlete received an undergraduate degree, regardless of whether the athlete
was participating in intercollegiate athletics.215 The Act would have required athletic academic
advisors or tutors to operate independently of the athletic department, and would have prohibited
athletic departments or school personnel from interfering with a student athlete’s choice of major,
coursework, or participation in extracurricular activities or outside employment.216 Higher
education institutions would have also been required to develop and offer financial literacy and
life skills programs that provided general information about the rights of student athletes under
the Act, and information about time management and basic personal financial skills.217
Like many other bills, the Act contained mandatory reporting provisions that would have required
higher education institutions to report booster donations, the number of hours student athletes
spent on athletic activities, and student athlete academic outcomes.218 The Act also sought to
create a Commission on College Athletics, a federally chartered corporation that would have
benefited both scholarship and non-scholarship student athletes.219 The Commission would have
been tasked with establishing standards regarding student athlete endorsement contracts,
certification of student athlete agents,220 educational requirements for student athletes, and health
wellness and safety standards for student athletes.221 The Commission would have also resolved
disputes regarding endorsement contracts, investigated violations of title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 and referred cases to the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of
Education, created various advisory councils, and conducted audits and investigations to ensure
compliance with the Act.222 The Commission would also have been authorized to enforce the Act
by imposing fines or penalties, or commencing civil actions in federal court.223 Potential penalties
for violations of the Act would have included suspending individual athletic personnel such as
coaches, athletic directors or other school employees, or fining individual higher education

213 Id., § 6.
214 Id.
215 Id., § 8.
216 Id.
217 Id., § 9. At minimum, first-year student athletes would be required under the Act to participate in these programs,
and the programs may not include any marketing, referral, advertising, or solicitation from providers of financial
products and services. See id.
218 Id., § 10.
219 Id., § 11.
220 Id. The Act would amend SPARTA to recognize the Commission as the certification body for student athlete agents.
See id.
221 Id.
222 Id.
223 Id., § 12.
Congressional Research Service

21

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

institutions or intercollegiate athletic associations or conferences up to $250,000 or 20% of the
school’s total athletic revenue.224
The Act would have also provided a private right of action for college athletes and states’ attorney
generals to sue for violations of the Act;225 however, the Act did not provide an antitrust
exemption or a preemption provision like many other bills.
Legislative Proposals from the 117th Congress
Several bills relating to various student athlete issues—including NIL compensation—have also
been introduced in the 117th Congress. Like many of the bills introduced in the 116th Congress,
the newly introduced bills all contain provisions, using varying approaches that would provide
NIL compensation rights for student athletes. One bill provides almost “unrestricted” NIL rights
for student athletes, while others contain more limitations on the right to earn NIL compensation.
Relevant legislation introduced as of July 1, 2021, is summarized below in chronological order.226
S. 238/H.R. 850—College Athlete Economic Freedom Act
The College Athlete Economic Freedom Act seeks to establish “unrestricted” NIL and athletic
reputation rights for student athletes.227 Some commentators have suggested that the Act “goes
well beyond existing proposed legislation at the federal and state level—and the proposed new
NCAA rules—in giving athletes broad rights, including virtually unrestricted access to earning
NIL income in individual and group NIL agreements.”228
The Act would prevent any higher education institution or intercollegiate athletic association from
enacting or enforcing any rules that would prevent student athletes or prospective student athletes,
either individually or as a group, from marketing the use of their NILs.229 The Act would also
prevent institutions of higher education from colluding with any other institutions of higher
education or third parties to limit the amount paid to student athletes for the use of their NIL.230
Higher education institutions and intercollegiate athletic associations would further be prohibited
from enacting or enforcing any rules that would prevent student athletes from forming or
recognizing “a collective representative to facilitate group licensing agreements,” and third
parties would be required to obtain licenses to use the NILs of members of the group.231 Further,

224 Id., § 4.
225 Id., § 12.
226 The following includes summaries of bills that would affect student athlete and NIL issues at length based on a
search of legislation introduced as of July 1, 2021, in the 117th Congress, but may not be a comprehensive list of every
bill that may discuss similar issues. H.R. 3379 (117th Cong. 2021) was introduced on May 20, 2021; however, the text
of the bill was not available as of the date of publication of this report.
227 Murphy, Trahan Introduce Legislation To Allow College Athletes to Make Money off Their Name, Image and
Likeness, (Feb. 4, 2021), https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-trahan-introduce-
legislation-to-allow-college-athletes-to-make-money-off-their-name-image-and-likeness.
228 Andrew Zimbalist, The College Athlete Economic Freedom Act Proposed in Congress is a Step Forward on NIL
Rights, FORBES (Feb. 7, 2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewzimbalist/2021/02/07/the-college-athlete-
economic-freedom-act-proposed-by-senator-chris-murphy-d-ct-and-congresswoman-lori-trahan-d-ma-is-a-step-
forward/?sh=57266ced2bbd.
229 S. 238 § 3 (117th Cong. 2021).
230 Id.
231 Id.
Congressional Research Service

22

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

the Act would prohibit the receipt of NIL compensation from affecting a student athlete’s
eligibility to receive grant-in-aid.232
Like other proposed legislation, the Act would provide that no rules shall be enacted that would
impact a student athlete’s eligibility based on obtaining professional representation for
contractual or legal rights related to NIL compensation, and it would prohibit higher education
institutions and intercollegiate athletic associations from regulating student athlete professional
representation.233 Although the Act would not require any higher education institution or
intercollegiate athletic association to provide support regarding NIL marketing and compensation,
if any support were provided, it would need to be equal and accessible to all student athletes,
regardless of gender, race, or participating sport.234
Unlike some other proposed bills, the Act would not seek to create a third-party entity to develop
rules and regulations related to NIL. Instead, the Act would authorize the Department of
Commerce to issue grants for “eligible entities”235 to conduct a “market analysis of the
monetization of the rights granted to student athletes.” Such grants would be conditioned on the
entity making public recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce as to how to address any
disparate estimates of compensation received by student athletes based on gender, race, and
sport.236 Like other proposed bills, the Act would grant enforcement authority to the FTC, but
would also grant a private right of action for individuals to pursue antitrust claims against those
who violate the Act.237 The Act also contains a preemption provision, which would preempt any
state laws or regulations except those relating to the certification of athlete agents under
SPARTA.238
S. 414—Amateur Athletes Protection and Compensation Act
The Amateur Athletes Protection and Compensation Act, which some commentators have
described as falling more toward the “middle” of other legislation introduced in the 116th and
117th Congresses,239 would provide NIL compensation rights, and would require higher education
institutions to provide additional protections for student athletes.240
Like many other proposed bills, the Act would prohibit an intercollegiate athletic association or
higher education institution from adversely impacting student athlete eligibility based on a
student athlete entering into an agency contract with a certified representative or receiving NIL
compensation.241 The Act’s language, however, includes some limitations on student athlete NIL
compensation. For example, the Act would provide that an intercollegiate athletic association or
higher education institution may revoke eligibility if the student athlete enters into an

232 Id.
233 Id.
234 Id.
235 The Act defines eligible entity as a “business in the United States,” “a public or private education and research
organization in the United States,” or a “consortium” of both. See id., § 4.
236 Id.
237 Id., § 5.
238 Id., § 6.
239 Ross Dellenger, Latest Congressional NIL Bill Would Allow Athletes to Enter Draft and Return to College, SPORTS
ILLUSTRATED (Feb. 24, 2021), https://www.si.com/college/2021/02/24/ncaa-athlete-rights-compensation-congress-
jerry-moran.
240 S. 414 (117th Cong. 2021).
241 Id., § 4.
Congressional Research Service

23

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

endorsement contract that violates the code of student conduct of the higher education institution
or any rule enacted by the Amateur Intercollegiate Athletics Corporation, an entity that is
established by the Act.242 A higher education institution, under the Act, would also be able to
prohibit a student athlete from engaging in promotional or endorsement activities during and
immediately before an intercollegiate athletic event.243 With regard to NIL contracts, both
enrolled and recruited athletes would be required to disclose their endorsement contracts to their
higher education institution.244
Beyond NIL compensation, the Act would also provide other protections for student athletes. For
example, under the Act, student athletes would be allowed to participate in intercollegiate
athletics after entering into a professional sports draft so long as the athlete did not receive any
compensation from a professional sports league or team or an agent.245 The Act would also
require a higher education institution to continue providing full grant-in-aid to any athlete who
did not finish his or her course of study in order to pursue a career in professional sports, and
would prohibit a higher education institution from revoking grant-in-aid for student athletes as a
result of injury or on the basis of the athlete’s ability, performance, or contribution to a team’s
success.246 The Act would prohibit certain eligibility penalties for student athletes transferring
schools,247 and would require higher education institutions to cover health care costs related to
athletic injuries or illness.248 Under the Act, higher education institutions would be required to
make legally binding disclosures to student athletes on matters such as grant-in-aid and medical
coverage, and to disclose information regarding the total compensation of the institution’s athletic
director and athletic coaches.249 The Act would also amend the HEA to make federal funding
contingent on compliance with the Act’s provisions.250
Like several other legislative proposals, the Act would create a third-party entity responsible for
establishing rules and mechanisms to enforce the Act, and for creating and enforcing a
certification process for amateur athlete professional representatives.251 Under the Act, national
amateur athletic associations, such as the NCAA, would be able to establish rules consistent with
the Act, and enforce such rules by revoking student athlete eligibility or withholding revenue
distributions from higher education institutions.252 National amateur athletic associations would
also have to submit biennial reports to Congress that would discuss issues, trends, and
recommendations regarding the Act and intercollegiate athletics as a whole.253
Like other proposed bills, the Act would also grant enforcement authority to the FTC.254 While
the Act does not include a total antitrust exemption, it would provide that any national amateur
athletic associations, conferences, or higher education institutions that are in compliance with the

242 Id.
243 Id.
244 Id.
245 Id.
246 Id.
247 See Hosick, supra note 101.
248 Id.
249 Id., § 6.
250 Id., § 7.
251 Id., § 8.
252 Id., § 10.
253 Id., § 11.
254 Id., § 9.
Congressional Research Service

24

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

Act would be shielded from any liability under any federal or state laws relating to trade or unfair
competition for actions taken before the Act is in effect.255 Like some other proposals, the Act
contains a preemption provision,256 and an explicit provision that student athletes are not
employees of higher education institutions, conferences, or national amateur athletic associations
based on their participation in intercollegiate athletics.257
H.R. 2841—The Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act
The Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act, first introduced in the 116th Congress and re-
introduced in the 117th Congress, remains largely the same as the original version but with two
notable changes.258 First, athletic organizations and higher education institutions would still be
allowed to prohibit student athletes from entering into endorsement contracts involving certain
industries, such as tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances, adult entertainment, or casinos/entities
that sponsor gambling.259 In the reintroduced version, however, if an athletic association or higher
education institution did prohibit these contracts, the association or institution would also be
prohibited from having a sponsorship deal with a company in one of the proscribed categories.260
Second, the reintroduced version provides greater leeway for student athletes to make
endorsement deals with shoe and apparel companies. The original version prohibited student
athletes from wearing “any item of clothing or gear with the insignia of any entity during any
athletic competition or university-sponsored event.”261 In the reintroduced version, student
athletes would only be prohibited from wearing any entity’s insignia during athletic competition
or athletic-related university-sponsored event.262
Considerations for Congress
The national debate on college athlete compensation has escalated in the years since the Ninth
Circuit’s O’Bannon decision. In the recent Alston decision, the Supreme Court—echoing the
Ninth Circuit—acknowledged that while the “national debate about amateurism in college sports
is important,” it is outside the role of the courts to resolve it.263 Overarching questions regarding
student athlete compensation will likely have to be resolved by athletic association governing
bodies—or alternatively, by Congress and state legislatures.
Individual state NIL laws will begin to go into effect as soon as July 2021, which, according to
the NCAA, will create “a patchwork of different laws” that will make it difficult to operate a “fair
and level playing field” for student athletes nationwide.264 According to some experts, a “state-by-
state” approach may be problematic if each state handles NIL rights differently, and may create
unequal treatment for student athletes.265 In turn, this may provide states opportunities to create

255 Id., § 12.
256 Id., § 13.
257 Id., § 5.
258 See supra, Legislative Proposals from the 116th Congress, H.R. 8382 – The Student Athlete Level Playing Field
Act.
259 H.R. 2841, § 2(b) (117th Cong. 2021).
260 Id., § 2(d).
261 H.R. 8382, § 2(a)(3) (116th Cong. 2020).
262 H.R. 2841, § 2(c) (117th Cong. 2021).
263 Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, No. 20-512, 2021 WL 2519036, at * 19 (U.S. June 21, 2021).
264 Emmert Testimony, supra note 114.
265 Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of
Congressional Research Service

25

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

competitive recruiting advantages for their in-state institutions by granting more lucrative NIL
rights to student athletes.266
There is disagreement, however, as to whether federal legislation is necessary. Some experts
argue that by passing individual state laws, states have created a market in which players will
have choices.267 Federal legislation, according to some commentators, will only benefit the
NCAA by providing protections from the free market.268 Although a state-by-state model may
resemble a free-market approach, other experts contend that a patchwork of state laws may create
increased litigation.269 For example, the NCAA may choose—as it has in the past270—to assert
constitutional claims against states with NIL laws, arguing the laws interfere with the contractual
relationship between the NCAA and its member schools by forcing the schools to violate NCAA
rules.271 During a June 2021 hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Emmert testified that the NCAA’s Board of Governors had yet to make a decision
on whether it would file injunctions over state NIL laws.272
The NCAA continues to encourage Congress to take action to implement nationwide NIL
compensation standards, and a wide variety of legislative proposals have been introduced on the
matter. While some of these proposals contain similar provisions, each varies in the extent to
which NIL compensation is regulated by law, and the role of the federal government in such
regulation. Questions remain as to how to handle issues such as the NCAA’s request for antitrust
protection, whether a federal law should preempt state law or allow for states to grant more NIL
rights, and the extent to which a school can control a student athlete’s endorsement opportunities.
There are also questions regarding the federal government’s role in enforcing any eventual NIL
law and what mechanisms would be use for enforcement.
Further, there is some debate over whether an NIL bill should be broad and include additional
protections for student athletes, or whether it should be narrowly focused on the NIL issue. At a
June 17, 2021, hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
several current and former college student athletes testified about the important of NIL rights, but
also urged Senators to adopt standards for student athlete health and safety.273 Many of the past
and current proposals have included provisions that touch on issues such as student athlete health
care and safety, scholarships, and the freedom to transfer schools or enter professional drafts
without losing intercollegiate athletic eligibility. Congress may choose to approach the matter by

Michael McCann, Professor of Law, Director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute University of New
Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law), https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/37D152EC-E8F7-49E2-
93B0-32FFA9AAA73D [hereinafter McCann Testimony].
266 Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of
Matthew J. Mitten), https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/01484B4B-1900-4341-8E82-39CD05A5083E.
267 Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of Rod
Gilmore), https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/3074E414-D454-499D-91F4-6F2383319AD3.
268 Id.
269 McCann Testimony, supra note 265.
270 See National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Miller, 795 F. Supp. 1476 (D. Nev. 1992) (successfully challenging a
Nevada law that required the NCAA to comply with certain procedural requirements in its investigatory process as a
violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Contracts Clause).
271 Michael McCann, NCAA’s Collision Course with State NIL Laws: Four Scenarios, SPORTICO (April 26, 2021),
https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2021/nil-legal-challenges-1234628197/.
272 Daniel Libit, Senate Panel Hears College Athlete Pay Factions as NCAA Seeks Cover, SPORTICO (June 9, 2021),
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2021/nil-senate-commerce-panel-1234631670/.
273 See, e.g., Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement
of Christina Chenault), https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/0993C618-4C19-4BF2-9E90-8D74062C6497.
Congressional Research Service

26

Student Athlete Name, Image, Likeness Legislation: Considerations for Congress

including more comprehensive reforms for student athletes, or may consider more narrow
proposals that only address the NIL compensation issue.

Author Information

Whitney K. Novak

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46828 · VERSION 1 · NEW
27