What does the term NIL mean and why is it so important to college sports?
Up until a few months ago, the term NIL had little meaning to those interested in college sports -- unless you were on the soccer team (and then it means "zero", literally). But now, NIL -- which stands for name, image, likeness -- is about to change the world of college athletics as we know it. As of Thursday, the NCAA's policy changes will allow athletes to better make money from their image or name, just as legislation in several states, including Florida, either will take effect or soon will. The NCAA's move is a dramatic one, breaking from decades of not permitting said money-making opportunities. Basically, if a college athlete lives in a state where legislation has been passed, they can profit from their name, image, or likeness according to state law. If the college athlete doesn't live in a state with a NIL law on the books, the individual school must come up with the policy for athletes to follow. According to ESPN, the NCAA's guidelines on this are few: Don't allow boosters to pay athletes and don't let endorsement deals influence recruiting. This move, according to The Athletic, is seen as a stopgap until federal legislation is passed. It allows schools in those states without laws on the books to have a more even playing field, provided the schools enact a NIL policy. The state's NIL law, which takes effect Thursday, allows intercollegiate athletes to earn compensation for the use of her or his name, image and likeness, and prohibits post-secondary institutions from preventing athletes from earning money or goods. The schools themselves can't compensate athletes for their name, image or likeness. At one point this year, this law was pushed back to July 1, 2022, but was shifted back to 2021 on April 30. In Florida, as of today, yes. Athletes in Florida, and 11 other states, are now able to gain compensation. In 12 others, it will be state law over the next few years. (Until then, the NCAA's ruling of allowing schools to come up with guidelines would be in effect.) Going back decades, the NCAA maintained itself a bastion of amateur sports, even as its member schools were making millions, sometimes hundreds of millions, from the athletes' labor. The athletes themselves weren't allowed compensation beyond a fully paid education. This changes that, allowing athletes to see a share of money for their hard work and athletic prowess. USA Today referred to it as a change as big as that of Title IX in 1981, which made the NCAA sponsor women's athletics championships. The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the NCAA's rules restricting education-related benefits were illegal. The court was unanimous. While the decision did not mean all student athletes could start signing endorsement deals, it did question whether any restrictions on acceptable benefits would stand up to scrutiny of future challenges on antitrust regulations. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion to the court's decision. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.