During NCAA 2021 March Madness tournament, prominent college basketball players posted # NonNCAAPproperty at Twitter. They aimed to increase public pressure on the National Collegiate Sports Association (NCAA) to allow compensation of student-athletes for endorsements.

These athletes are not alone in their call to action. Eleven states have past laws authorizing compensation of college athletes for third party endorsements And six pieces of legislation are waiting to the US Congress, which would do the same across the country.

The details of state laws and federal bills differ, but they Mark a seismic shift in views on student-athlete compensation In February, the US Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) became the seventh member of Congress – including three Democrats – to present legislation on what is now known as the “Name, Image and Likeness” (NIL) reform for college athlete compensation.

Only a few years ago, such legislative proposals to compensate university athletes would have been shocking to have. For years the NCAA proclaimed that any possibility for student athletes to obtain compensation, even for off-field activities, would destroy the spirit of amateur athletics. But after California past declare NIL legislation in 2019, and with Florida NIL legislation taken effective July 1 of this year, the NCAA began to change positions. Today it supports Federal legislation for the compensation of NIL student-athletes.

While all of the legislation proposed to Congress would allow compensation for athletes, several bills contain provisions that allow universities to retain some control over products that college athletes can approve.

Republican Senator Moran, for example, has offers allow universities to create school-specific “student codes of conduct” to limit athlete approvals. American representative Emanuel cleaver (D-Mo.) And US representative Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio), in a bipartisan bill, proposed more specific limitations. These limitations include the prohibition of athletes from wearing clothing from competing brands of the university or from companies approved by the university, such as alcohol or tobacco brands. Moran’s bill would rely on universities to create additional rules that could restrict NIL contracts, a potential antitrust concern that the US senator Chris murphy (D-Conn.) valorize strongly against in his proposal.

Federal proposals come in rapid succession over the past nine months due to the impending deadline of Florida State NIL legislation: July 1, 2021. Numerous federal proposals include a state preemption clause to avoid a patchwork of state regulations that could influence where a player decides to go to college, a result Congress and the NCAA want to avoid.

All federal proposals ensure this “subsidy”, essentially scholarships, remains guaranteed regardless of the compensation for the endorsement. In addition, universities must avoid tries to influence third parties to get recruits to choose a certain school.

While current legislative proposals in Congress agree on the general framework for college athletes to seek approval compensation, the main differences include antitrust exemption, royalties returned, penalties, and enforcement.

Both bill offers by the American senator Marco rubio (R-Fla.) And the bill introduced by Representatives Gonzalez and Cleaver, for example, provide protection against antitrust lawsuits. These proposals are contrary to Senator Murphy’s bill which States that violating NIL legislation is “a in itself violation of Sherman Law. ” A in itself a violation would mean that if the college athletes can demonstrate illegal pricing or division would have automatically lose and cannot offer any justification for their actions.

The discussion of antitrust review comes as the United States Supreme Court recently heard an NCAA antitrust case. On March 31, the Supreme Court heard argument in the case of NCAA vs. Alston, an antitrust case over alleged NCAA and college collusion to limit athletic scholarships to “non-monetary education benefits.” Similar to the ninth circuit in Alston, drafters of the NIL legislation recognize the harm that can occur if universities, the NCAA, or third parties price or split the market for college athlete endorsement contracts.

US Senator Cory booker (DN.J.) a introduced the broadest proposal, which would require universities to create a revenue sharing agreement with university athletes. This would force universities to Pay Eligible varsity athletes 50 percent of all income generated each year by their sport, less scholarship fees. For reference, during the 2018-2019 academic year, the University of Alabama football team yielded revenues of $ 108.2 million for the school.

Senator Booker plan also includes the heaviest penalties for universities that break the law. According to its plan, a university would face fines 20 percent of total sports income for coordination with other universities or third parties to limit player compensation.

The application of all bills happen through the section on unfair or deceptive practices of the Federal Trade Commission Act. In addition, the two bills of the Democratic senators include a private right of action for student athletes to sue the NCAA or the universities.

The NCAA, after opposite California state law two years ago, supports Federal legislation VOID. In January 2021, the NCAA Presidential Subcommittee on Congressional Action advised that Congress include the pre-emption of NIL state laws, the safe harbor against NIL lawsuits, and the “non-employment status” of student-athletes.

the Washington University possesses created a “Boundless Futures Program” which helps student athletes develop their skills to monetize their NIL rights. Other universities are preparing similar programs for their student athletes, such as several NIL bills, including Florida state law, require student-athlete workshops on personal branding and financial well-being.

Allowing varsity athletes to receive an approval allowance marks a paradigm shift for varsity athletics. While all parties expect a federal NIL law to be passed at some point, the change will likely not happen until after the Supreme Court ruling. Alston, a result expected by June 2021.