It’s Time To Make NIL Federally Regulated
Written by Nicholas Opperman
College athletics has become a national commercial enterprise, generating billions in media rights, sponsorships, and donor activity across state lines. Yet the legal framework governing name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation remains fragmented across dozens of state statutes and institutional policies. Since the NCAA lifted its restrictions on athlete compensation in 2021, lawmakers in more than 30 states have enacted divergent NIL laws, each with different disclosure requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and limits on institutional involvement. The result is regulatory inconsistency in what is undeniably an interstate market. This inconsistency gives certain programs advantages under more lenient laws and hinders them in states with unfavorable NIL laws. If college sports now operate nationally, Congress should establish a uniform federal NIL framework that promotes clarity, protects athletes, and restores competitive stability across all of the states.
The current patchwork creates competitive distortions that have little to do with player development or institutional excellence. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures’ NIL tracker, states have adopted materially different approaches to athlete compensation governance. Some permit broad institutional facilitation of NIL deals; others impose tighter constraints. Some require detailed disclosures; others shield arrangements from public view. In response, universities pressure legislatures to loosen their laws to remain “competitive,” turning statehouses into extensions of recruiting departments. When legislative geography determines recruiting leverage, market incentives become warped.
The escalation dynamic is already visible. Investigations by outlets such as ESPN and reporting from The Wall Street Journal have documented the rapid growth of booster-backed collectives and the increasing scale of NIL compensation packages. Power programs with expansive donor networks thrive, while mid-major schools face structural disadvantages unrelated to coaching quality or academic support. Without uniform guardrails, the NIL marketplace risks becoming an arms race in which institutional stability takes a back seat to short-term bidding strategies. Competitive balance—already strained by conference realignment and media disparities—erodes further.
A federal NIL framework would not eliminate competition, nor should it. But it could establish baseline standards that stabilize the system. Congress has already begun debating national solutions, including the SCORE Act (Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act), which seeks to create uniform NIL rules, regulate agent conduct, and clarify institutional involvement. Congress has clear authority to regulate interstate commerce, and college athletics plainly qualify. Through targeted legislation such as the SCORE Act, lawmakers could implement uniform disclosure requirements, standardized agent certification rules, and clear parameters defining institutional involvement in NIL activities.
Federal legislation could also reduce the perpetual litigation cycle that has come to define college sports governance. In the absence of statutory clarity, courts continue to shape the contours of permissible regulation. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in NCAA v. Alston made clear that broad compensation restrictions are vulnerable under antitrust scrutiny. Carefully tailored federal legislation could provide a limited safe harbor for transparency and reporting mechanisms while preserving athletes’ earning freedom. That approach would replace ad hoc courtroom policymaking with deliberate legislative design.
Opponents argue that federal intervention would constitute overreach and stifle innovation. States, they contend, serve as laboratories of democracy. But laboratories are useful only when experiments can be evaluated coherently. In NIL’s case, the experiments are not isolated. They directly interact in a shared national marketplace. A recruit choosing between programs in different states is affected by conflicting legal regimes. Conferences operating across multiple jurisdictions must navigate inconsistent compliance frameworks. What appears as innovation in theory becomes a distortion in practice.
Others warn that federal legislation could be used to restrict an athlete’s earning power under the guise of regulation. That concern is legitimate. Any federal bill that imposes compensation caps or broad antitrust exemptions favoring institutions would rightly draw criticism. But that is not an argument against legislation altogether; it is an argument for drafting it correctly. A well-constructed statute would establish a regulatory floor, not a ceiling, protecting athletes through transparency and standardized safeguards while preserving their right to maximize market value.
College athletics is no longer a loosely affiliated collection of regional programs. It is a national commercial enterprise competing for viewers, sponsors, and recruits on a national stage. Allowing dozens of conflicting state laws to govern a unified market invites inequity, instability, and continued litigation. A narrowly tailored federal NIL framework would not solve every problem facing college sports. It would, however, provide coherence where there is currently confusion and stability where there is currently escalation.
The question is not whether Congress will eventually intervene. The legal, economic, and competitive pressures make that outcome increasingly likely. The real question is whether lawmakers will act proactively, crafting a measured framework that protects athletes and preserves competitive integrity, or will they continue to let the system drift until a crisis forces their hand. In a national marketplace, national standards are not radical. They are responsible for governance.
