NIL 6
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Boston College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1000
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by ChiefHornetMaster369
In this module, we explored a bit further the state laws and institutional policies governing
the operations of educational institutions. We touched on this and did some exploration in
Module 2 as well. Now we are analyzing how they address risks and ensure equitable treatment for all individuals, irrespective of their race or gender. In Module 2 I specifically gained some valuable insights into the regulations governing NIL rights for student-
athletes, particularly in California and Florida. California's Fair Pay to Play Act, enacted through Senate Bill 206 and Senate Bill 26, marked a significant milestone, allowing student-athletes to monetize their NIL without state-mandated restrictions on specific endorsement types. Conversely, Florida's NIL law, effective from July 1, 2021, permits various avenues for NIL compensation while prohibiting "pay for play" arrangements to preserve the amateur nature of intercollegiate athletics.
Considering these state-level regulations, it's essential to examine how institutions navigate the complex terrain of NIL rights. Taking Stanford University, I noticed their approach to compliance with California's NIL laws. The university's emphasis on disclosure requirements and prohibitions against unauthorized use of the Stanford brand reflects a commitment to upholding legal mandates and safeguarding the integrity of collegiate athletics. However, the stringent policy prohibiting the use of Stanford branding in NIL-related activities raises concerns about limiting student-athletes' opportunities to leverage their affiliation with prestigious institutions for NIL endorsements. While Stanford's policies align with California law, there is a notable absence of guidance on maximizing NIL opportunities for student-athletes. The emphasis on prohibitions may overshadow opportunities for athletes to capitalize on their NIL rights effectively. A more balanced approach that educates student-athletes on navigating
NIL opportunities while adhering to legal requirements could allow them to make informed decisions about their brand partnerships and endorsements.
When looking at how state laws and school rules intersect in this module, it's clear that while following the rules is important, schools also need to focus on teaching student-
athletes about their rights when it comes to making money from their NIL. By encouraging
students to be entrepreneurial, colleges can help them make the most of their opportunities while still following the rules. State laws are really important in shaping how
schools work, making sure everyone gets treated fairly. Two big laws that help with this are Title IX and Title VI. Title IX stops discrimination based on gender in school programs that get federal money. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act stops discrimination based on race, color, or where someone comes from. These laws make sure students are protected and can learn in a fair environment.
Going beyond what laws require, school rules are super important for making sure everyone is treated fairly. These rules need to match up with big laws like Title IX and Title
VI, which stop discrimination based on things like gender and race. Good rules should have clear steps for handling discrimination complaints fairly and quickly, protecting the rights of all students and teachers. Also, schools need to be careful about using logos and trademarks, especially when it comes to sports. Some schools let athletes use logos and trademarks a little bit for things like making money from their name or image, but they have to follow strict NCAA rules. It's really important for state laws and school rules to work together to make sure things are fair and equal. If there are differences between what the law says and what schools do, it can cause problems and put schools in trouble. For example, if a school's logo policy doesn't match up with NCAA rules, the school could get in trouble and face punishments.
While NIL rights offer opportunities for athletes to earn money from endorsements, there's a risk of violating regulations, like those outlined in state laws or NCAA guidelines. For instance, student-athletes may unknowingly breach their school's policies on logo usage or fail to disclose NIL agreements, which could lead to disciplinary actions or loss of eligibility. Similarly, institutions face risks of non-compliance with federal and state laws, potentially resulting in legal disputes or loss of funding. Therefore, it's crucial for schools to provide clear guidance and education on NIL rights to mitigate the risks.
Hypothetical 2:
The first question is about whether collectives, like the True Believer Collective, are exempt from Title IX as third-party entities. There’s also a concern about the collective's agreement with Loyal State Athletics and its use of the university's logos in its activities. From a university standpoint, it's critical to understand that while the True Believer Collective operates externally, its connection to the institution may blur the distinction between third-party status and university association. The institution has to ensure that any actions taken by the collective adhere to Title IX regulations to prevent potential discrimination issues. Loyal State Athletics, being the institution's partner, holds the responsibility to monitor the collective's activities to make sure that they are compliant. I think the university has a responsibility to provide reminders of its duty to uphold Title IX principles and to avoid discriminatory actions. Hypothetical 4:
The situation presented raises significant concerns regarding potential inequities in NIL compensation among student-athletes at Loyal State. As the athletic director, it is important to address the players' concerns transparently. I would first acknowledge their concerns regarding the disparity in NIL compensation between white and African American student-athletes, particularly the example between Peyton Brady and his African American teammates. Next, I would assure the players that the institution takes allegations of discrimination seriously and is committed to upholding the principles of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color,
or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. It’s important to emphasize that Title VI requires recipients of federal funding, including educational institutions like Loyal State, to ensure equitable treatment for all individuals regardless of race. To determine liability for a Title VI violation, I would review the disparate impact theory, which holds that even if discrimination is not intentional, policies or practices that disproportionately affect individuals based on protected characteristics,
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
such as race, may still constitute unlawful discrimination. The significant disparity in NIL earnings between white and African American student-athletes at Loyal State could potentially be viewed as evidence of disparate impact. I would conduct a review of compensation practices to find biases and work to promote greater equity and transparency in NIL opportunities.
Hypothetical 5: As the athletic director at Loyal State, I understand the need to balance athletes' opportunities for NIL deals with our university's contractual commitments and brand partnerships. After hearing concerns from several athletes about the restriction on endorsing shoe and apparel brands other than Nike, I think the university needs to consider more options. One potential option is to allow athletes to endorse non-Nike brands outside official Loyal State activities, as long as they don't wear competitor products during practice or official team events. In looking at contracts from prior modules, I think these were common themes. This allows athletes more freedom in pursuing NIL opportunities while protecting our university's partnerships and brand reputation. However, when it comes to making a special exception for Sion Prophet, I think that’s where you would run into big trouble. While accommodating Prophet's request might seem appealing for retaining his talent and boosting his personal brand and even the university's visibility, it seems like a really bad idea and very risky. Making an exception could lead to dissatisfaction among other athletes and weaken the policy's effectiveness because other athletes will want the same exception. You would set a precedent. It would also compete with Nike and you could lose them as a sponsor.