top of page

Policing the NIL Pay-for-Play Problem in College Sports

Written by Mani Balaji



Introducing Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights for college athletes has ushered in a new era of monetization opportunities. Still, it has also brought forth a contentious issue – the potential for NIL deals to facilitate de facto "pay-for-play" schemes that could undermine the principles of amateurism in collegiate sports. As booster-funded collectives pool resources to offer lucrative NIL deals to high-profile recruits, concerns have mounted about the blurring lines between permissible NIL activities and improper recruiting inducements.


At the heart of this debate lies the tension between the NCAA's commitment to preserving the amateur nature of college sports and the growing influence of third-party entities leveraging NIL rights for their interests. While the NCAA has taken steps to establish guidelines and enforce existing rules, the rapidly evolving NIL landscape has exposed regulatory gaps and challenges in maintaining a level playing field.


As Booster-Driven NIL Collectives Continue to Proliferate:


The landscape of collegiate athletics has been significantly altered due to the rise of NIL collectives driven by booster membership. These organizations, often established by affluent alumni or fans of specific colleges, combine their resources to provide lucrative NIL agreements to top recruits and athletes already competing. These collectives aim to encourage outstanding athletes to attend or stay at their chosen colleges by offering significant non-monetary remuneration via the promise of such reward.


Concerns have been raised when these transactions seem thinly disguised efforts to bypass the restriction on pay-for-play methods. Although the NCAA has accepted the validity of NIL activities, these deals have caused alarm. Critics contend that some collectives make use of the National Interest Law (NIL) as a loophole to engage in inappropriate recruitment inducements, which has the potential to create an uneven playing field and undermine the principles established for fair competition.


Legal and Regulatory Challenges:


The policing of NIL-related activities in college sports faces several legal and regulatory challenges. One of the primary hurdles is the need for a comprehensive federal framework governing NIL rights and the potential conflicts with state-level NIL laws. This patchwork of regulations has created uncertainties and inconsistencies, making establishing uniform standards and enforcement mechanisms difficult.


Additionally, the involvement of third-party entities, such as booster-driven collectives, adds another layer of complexity. While the NCAA has jurisdiction over its member institutions and student-athletes, its authority over these independent organizations is limited. This has raised questions about the appropriate regulatory approach and how the NCAA can intervene in NIL activities facilitated by external entities.


Potential Legal Implications and Remedies:


As the NIL landscape continues to evolve, several legal implications and potential remedies have emerged:


1. Antitrust Scrutiny: The activities of booster-driven collectives and their potential to create an uneven playing field could draw antitrust scrutiny. If these organizations are found to be engaging in anticompetitive practices or monopolizing the NIL market in certain regions, they may face legal challenges under antitrust laws.


2. Contract Law and Disclosure Requirements: The NCAA and member institutions could explore implementing stricter contract and disclosure requirements for NIL deals to promote transparency and accountability. This could involve mandating the disclosure of deal terms, funding sources, and potential conflicts of interest, allowing for greater scrutiny and enforcement of violations.


3. Eligibility Sanctions and Enforcement: The NCAA could consider strengthening its enforcement mechanisms and imposing eligibility sanctions on student-athletes participating in NIL deals deemed improper recruiting inducements or pay-for-play schemes. However, this approach would require unambiguous rules to withstand legal challenges.


4. Legislative Intervention: Without a comprehensive federal framework, state legislatures could step in to establish more straightforward regulations and guidelines for NIL activities within their jurisdictions. This could involve setting limits on third-party involvement, defining permissible NIL activities, and establishing oversight mechanisms.


5. Institutional Policies and Governance: Individual colleges and universities could take proactive steps to implement institutional policies and governance structures to monitor and regulate NIL activities involving their student-athletes. This could include establishing internal review boards, implementing reporting requirements, and setting institution-specific guidelines.


Finding the Right Balance:


Addressing the NIL pay-for-play problem requires a delicate balance between preserving college sports' integrity and respecting student-athlete's rights to benefit from their NIL. Any proposed solutions must navigate the complexities of antitrust laws, contract principles, and the varying state-level regulations governing NIL rights.


One potential approach could involve a combination of regulatory measures and industry self-governance. The NCAA could collaborate with member institutions, state legislatures, and legal experts to develop comprehensive guidelines and best practices for NIL activities. These guidelines could outline clear boundaries for permissible NIL deals, establish transparency and disclosure requirements, and define the roles and limitations of third-party entities, such as booster-driven collectives.


Additionally, establishing an independent oversight body or regulatory commission could provide a centralized authority to monitor NIL activities, investigate potential violations, and enforce compliance. Such a body could be empowered to issue sanctions, including fines or suspensions, for individuals or organizations engaging in improper recruiting inducements or pay-for-play schemes.


Ultimately, the long-term success of the NIL era in college sports will depend on finding a balance that respects the rights and interests of all stakeholders while maintaining the integrity and fairness of the collegiate athletic system.


The Role of Legal Professionals


As the NIL landscape evolves, legal professionals will play a crucial role in shaping the regulatory framework and ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Attorneys specializing in sports law, antitrust, and contract law will be instrumental in advising institutions, student-athletes, and third-party entities on navigating the complex legal terrain surrounding NIL rights. Legal professionals can contribute to developing best practices, drafting contractual agreements, and implementing compliance programs. They can also guide on potential legal risks and liabilities associated with NIL activities, helping to mitigate the risks of inadvertent violations or unintended consequences.


Furthermore, legal experts can be pivotal in advocating for regulatory reforms or legislative changes that promote transparency, fairness, and ethical conduct within the NIL ecosystem. Their insights and advocacy efforts can influence policymakers and industry stakeholders to adopt measures that strike the right balance between protecting the integrity of college sports and safeguarding the rights and interests of student-athletes.




The emergence of NIL rights in college sports has opened up new opportunities for student-athletes to monetize their brand and capitalize on their fame. However, the potential for these NIL deals to facilitate pay-for-play schemes and undermine the principles of amateurism has raised significant concerns and challenges for the industry.


Addressing the NIL pay-for-play problem will require a multi-faceted approach involving regulatory measures, industry self-governance, and legal expertise. By establishing clear guidelines, implementing transparency and disclosure requirements, and empowering independent oversight bodies, the NCAA and its member institutions can work towards promoting fairness and maintaining the integrity of college sports.


Ultimately, the success of the NIL era will depend on finding a delicate balance that respects the rights and interests of all stakeholders while upholding the core values of collegiate athletics. Legal professionals, policymakers, and industry leaders must collaborate to develop a comprehensive and robust framework that fosters a level playing field, promotes ethical conduct, and safeguards the long-term viability of the collegiate sports system.

*The Author is a legal Scholar from India

(The Image used here is for representative purposes only)


  1.  Moody, J. (2023, June 7). Two years in, NIL is fueling chaos in college athletics. Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs. 

  2.  NIL Compliance | Law review. (2023, April 17). © 2024 Boston University.

  3.  A look at recent changes to the NIL landscape for student athletes | The Legal Intelligencer. (2023, August 31). The Legal Intelligencer. 

  4. Reporter, G. S. (2021b, July 1). NCAA clears way for college athletes to be compensated as state laws loom. The Guardian. 

  5.  Mstern. (2020, November 25). One – “NIL”: A Score for Student-Athletes in their Fight for Name, Image, and Likeness Rights | Louisiana Law Review. 


bottom of page