This article was originally published in the October 3 issue of the Portland Business Journal.
Until recently, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) long-prohibited student athletes from making money off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. But in 2021, preceded by emerging state legislation and a series of key court decisions laying the foundation for NIL compensation, the NCAA introduced new bylaws that for the first time allowed student athletes to be compensated based on their NIL rights, which sparked a volatile period in the governance of NIL rights for college student athletes and a volatile period for higher education institutions trying to keep up with the legal, regulatory, and cultural shifts to college athletics.
The landscape shifted even more significantly on June 6, 2025, when Senior District Judge Claudia Wilken granted final approval to the landmark settlement in the House v. NCAA class action suit, which for the first time created a path for Division I schools to pay students directly for their NIL rights through NIL agreements (aka revenue sharing). Now student athletes can receive compensation for their NIL not only from third-party brand sponsors or donor-funded collectives but also directly from their institution.
These changes have created a marketplace estimated to be in the billions, and not surprisingly, it has become professionalized and regulated. Under the House settlement terms, all third-party NIL deals valued over $600 must be reported to an “NIL Go” clearinghouse for an independent range of compensation review. Deals determined to exceed the range of compensation or to lack a valid business purpose may be flagged for renegotiation, cancellation, or binding arbitration.
While the new NIL industry offers a new marketing opportunity for Oregon businesses— especially for those in the world of sports, fitness, or college-related industries—anyone advising on or crafting NIL agreements must know and navigate applicable restrictions, rules, and policies. Student athletes’ compensation and brand-sponsorship deals may start to resemble those with professional athletes, but there are key differences for brand sponsors and businesses who want to enter this NIL marketplace. NIL deals must be approved by the clearinghouse and must conform to NCAA as well as applicable state laws and institutional policies, which can vary in significant ways.
Institutions of higher education must also navigate the new reality of paid student-athletes on their campuses whose compensation can rival highly compensated administrators or even professional athletes. They must do so while considering their own institutional policies, mission, and obligations, whether under Title IX or otherwise, and while training their staff on how to engage in this new world. Post-House settlement, Division I institutions now must draft and negotiate agreements with their student athletes related to revenue sharing and must do so with student athlete representation by attorneys and agents. Even absent revenue sharing, student athletes now have an evolving relationship with their educational institutions, one that may lead to more exposure to the institution if an incident, injury, or conduct decision impacts the student-athlete’s eligibility or status as a student.
With these new opportunities come important considerations for anyone involved in the new NIL marketplace. The disruption of several decades of college sports amateurism will only continue to bring changes, challenges, and questions, and it is key for anyone in this space—whether brands, institutions, or athletes—to understand the current landscape and to anticipate what is to come.
This article is provided for informational purposes only—it does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the firm and the reader. Readers should consult legal counsel before taking action relating to the subject matter of this article.
