NCAA Rules Athletes Can Earn Money From Their Name
The NCAA has reportedly approved a temporary policy allowing college athletes to get paid for the use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL).
CBS News reports the organization made the announcement on Wednesday (June 30) with the new policy going into effect today, which is the same day NIL laws are set to go into effect in seven states.
The interim policy will allow athletes and recruits to make money off activities, including autograph signings, endorsements and personal appearances as long as they are consistent with any applicable state law where the athlete’s school is located. It will be in place until there is federal legislation, or the NCAA creates permanent rules.
Athletes will also be able to use professional service providers for money-earning opportunities while schools will be responsible for determining whether those activities are state law compliant.
“With the variety of state laws adopted across the country, we will continue to work with Congress to develop a solution that will provide clarity on a national level,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said in Wednesday’s announcement, according to CBS News. “The current environment — both legal and legislative — prevents us from providing a more permanent solution and the level of detail student-athletes deserve.”
So far, 20 states have passed NIL legislation. On Monday, with the state-authorized NIL laws looming, the NCAA Division I Council voted to recommend that the Division I board of directors adopt the new interim policy.
The change comes a week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA cannot place limits on education-related benefits for the student-athletes, according to CBS News. After the ruling came down, the association said it would continue to support them.
“Even though the decision does not directly address name, image and likeness, the NCAA remains committed to supporting NIL benefits for student-athletes,” Emmert said in a statement. “Additionally, we remain committed to working with Congress to chart a path forward, which is a point the Supreme Court expressly stated in its ruling.”