athletes – Duane Morris Sports Law

October 5, 2026October 6, 2026 by Bryan Shapiro

The Protect College Sports Act Clears the Senate: What Stakeholders Need to Know

On September 28, 2026, the U.S. Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act (S.4668), as amended, by a 77-22 vote, marking the first time either chamber of Congress has approved sweeping federal legislation governing college athletics. The bill was unveiled in late May 2026 and formally introduced on June 2, 2026, by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA). The Senate-passed version differs substantially from the introduced bill after revisions in August and September and three floor amendments. It represents the most comprehensive federal attempt to bring legal order to a college sports landscape that has been operating under a patchwork of state NIL laws, court rulings, and evolving NCAA policies since states began passing their own NIL statutes in 2021. As the Duane Morris Sports Law Blog noted when the bill was first introduced, the legislation’s significance for universities and conferences “cannot be overstated,” as it addresses the structural chaos that has defined college athletics in the post-NIL era. For college and university general counsel, athletic directors, and compliance officers, the immediate question is what issues should be anticipated now.

Key Provisions of the Bill

The bill’s material provisions are wide-ranging and would fundamentally reshape the governance of college sports. At a high level, the Protect College Sports Act would:

Establish a uniform federal NIL framework, preempting specified state-law requirements concerning NIL, transfers, eligibility, and student status and academics, while preserving state tort, civil rights, contract, consumer protection, and similar laws, including personal-injury claims alleging inadequate health or safety measures.
Lock the House v. NCAA revenue-sharing model into federal law, maintaining an approximately $21.3 million per-school annual cap for 2026-27 (up from $20.5 million in 2025-26, with 4% annual increases and a three-year reset at 22% of average shared revenue), while creating a $22.5 million retention fund plus up to $5 million more unlocked dollar-for-dollar by compensation or NIL spending on women’s, Olympic, and other non-revenue sports (maximum $27.5 million; total potential outlays of about $48.8 million).
Grant the NCAA and conferences a limited antitrust exemption to enforce rules governing eligibility, transfers, and compensation — a protection the industry has sought for years through multiple failed legislative efforts.
Impose transfer restrictions, limiting athletes to one transfer before a mandatory eligibility pause, with a five-year playing window capped at age 24.
Create a federal agent registry capping representation fees at 5% and requiring athletes to report NIL deals exceeding $600.
Mandate health and academic protections, including coverage of out-of-pocket medical costs for sports-related injuries for five years post-competition and provisions to protect opportunities in women’s and Olympic sports.

A Closer Look: The Provisions That Will Drive Institutional Risk

The headline provisions tell only part of the story. For institutions, the more consequential features sit in the bill’s mechanics, and several deserve closer scrutiny.

The compensation architecture. The bill does more than preserve the House cap. For 2026-27, the cap would be approximately $21.3 million per school (up from $20.5 million in 2025-26), with 4% annual increases and a three-year reset at 22% of average shared revenue. Schools could exceed the cap by up to $22.5 million annually through a retention fund for athletes who completed at least one full season, plus up to $5 million more unlocked dollar-for-dollar by compensation or NIL spending on women’s, Olympic, and other non-revenue sports (maximum $27.5 million), for potential total outlays of about $48.8 million. Under Sec. 115, the cap and retention fund end when the House settlement expires or terminates unless Congress passes a joint resolution; defendants must give Congress 180 days’ notice. The retention fund also sunsets nine years after enactment and is conditioned on academic benchmarks. Institutions should therefore build expiration, sunset, and academic-performance scenarios into athletics budgets rather than treat above-cap spending as permanent.

Third-party NIL and the “associated entity” test. Athletes could continue to sign outside NIL deals, but those agreements would have to serve a legitimate commercial purpose and reflect the athlete’s market value. The Senate bill adopts the House settlement’s definition of “associated entity,” including boosters and collectives, which reaches, among others, individuals who have given more than $50,000 to the athletics program. Compensation from associated entities counts toward the cap, and those deals must serve a valid business purpose and be commensurate with market comparables. The bill adds a three-part certification requirement: multimedia rights holders, sponsors, apparel companies, and vendors must certify that the institution is not the source of the athlete’s compensation; the actual funder must certify that it is the true source; and the institution, if required, must certify that it is not using the arrangement to circumvent the cap. Since NIL Go launched in June 2025, the CSC had declined to clear 1,812 deals worth roughly $90 million as of its July 2026 report, about 20% of submitted dollars. As we noted when the bill was introduced, the CSC has taken the position that redirecting corporate sponsorship dollars to rosters as third-party NIL is a way of circumventing the cap, and the bill would empower the CSC to police that conduct. Schools whose donor and collective relationships have been structured around that practice should assume those arrangements will be examined closely.

Reporting obligations. Athletes would be required to report NIL deals exceeding $600, aggregated over a 12-month period and inflation-adjusted, to their school and association within five days. A five-day window is tight. The athlete bears the reporting duty, but the institution will realistically bear the operational burden of intake, tracking, and follow-up, and of explaining any gaps.

The antitrust shield, and its limits. The limited antitrust exemption is the structural foundation on which the rest of the bill rests, and it has eluded the industry through years of failed legislative attempts, including the House’s SCORE Act, which stalled before a floor vote. The sponsors have framed the Sec. 118 protection as targeted legal certainty rather than blanket immunity. The safe harbor is conditional: it applies only if the association adopts rules implementing all covered categories, and compliance with the revenue cap is a condition. The bill also creates a private right of action for athletes, subject to 30-day notice and cure, except for physical injury, death, or sexual abuse claims; pre-dispute arbitration is barred. That distinction matters. The protection attaches to enforcement of the new rules, so institutions and conferences that act outside the statutory framework should not assume they are insulated from suit.

Governance, coaching, and media rights. The bill limits in-season coaching movement for FBS football coaches and key staff taking over another program in the same season. It also imposes merger and acquisition limits on power conferences with more than $700 million in revenue, sets a 20-member ceiling (raised from 19 by the adopted Moody-Blumenthal floor amendment), provides a three-year independent period for schools switching power conferences that sunsets after six years, and bars entities such as private equity from acquiring schools’ media rights to form a new league. Media pooling requires approval from 75% of FBS institutions. These changes carry direct contractual and governance consequences for athletic departments and conference offices. Proponents estimate pooled media rights could generate $4 billion to $8 billion in additional revenue, although the SEC and Big Ten have said they would not participate. Notably, a floor amendment to cap coach pay at $5 million narrowly failed, but institutions with more than $80 million in athletic revenue may not pay coaches more than $500,000 from funds other than college sports revenue or athletic-department donations.

Health and safety mandates. Schools would be required to cover out-of-pocket medical costs for sports-related injuries, including for five years after an athlete’s final competition, and to carry catastrophic injury coverage above $90,000. The bill would also establish a $60 million association medical trust fund, expandable to $100 million, for lower-revenue schools and long-term conditions such as CTE, and guarantee scholarship and degree completion for 10 years after eligibility ends. These are new, affirmative federal standards, and institutions that fall short face potential exposure.

What the bill leaves unresolved. Several open issues should be on every general counsel’s radar. First, the bill stays neutral on whether athletes are employees, which leaves the possibility of employee status or collective bargaining alive. Second, the bill includes a Title IX savings clause, while the House settlement has faced Title IX challenges on appeal at the Ninth Circuit. Third, the women’s and Olympic sports protection in Sec. 125 applies only to institutions with at least $50 million in athletic revenue, requires maintaining 2024-25 roster and scholarship levels, and is subject to nine-year and four-year sunsets. Fourth, the HBCU program authorizes, but does not appropriate, $180 million per year for fiscal years 2027-2032. Federal preemption will simplify some questions, but narrowed preemption and preserved state-law claims will not eliminate litigation risk.

The Senate Vote and the Road Ahead

The bill passed late Monday night after nearly six hours of debate. The Senate voted on seven amendments, three of which were adopted: the Baldwin preemption carve-out (96-1), the Scott foreign-financing disclosure amendment, and the Moody-Blumenthal amendment raising the membership ceiling to 20. Opposition was pointed. Sen. Cory Booker urged colleagues to postpone the vote, citing the bill’s impact on athletes, especially Black athletes, and all four Black Democrats in the Senate voted against the procedural motion on a bill strongly opposed by the NAACP.

The adopted Scott amendment requires colleges, conferences, and associations to disclose amounts over $600 received from a foreign adversary, state-owned enterprise, or sovereign wealth fund.

While the Senate vote was a landmark moment, the bill’s path to enactment remains uncertain. The House of Representatives is not scheduled to return until November 9, 2026, after the midterms, and will face competing priorities including a government funding deadline on December 11. Critically, if the House does not pass the bill before the new Congress is sworn in on January 3, 2027, the legislation dies. The House’s own college sports bill — the SCORE Act — never reached a House floor vote, and House Republicans have signaled they want changes, including a ban on athlete employment status, limits on international players (including the proposed TEAM USA Act’s 20% roster limit), the conference-expansion clause, the private right of action, and HBCU funding. Any House changes would send the bill back to the Senate. Speaker Johnson has said he will take it up after the midterms. That said, President Trump has publicly urged lawmakers to pass the bill, and the strong bipartisan Senate vote of 77-22 gives it meaningful momentum.

What Schools and Compliance Departments Should Be Doing Now

For universities and their compliance offices, now is the time to prepare rather than wait. As the Duane Morris Sports Law Blog has advised, institutions “should not wait for final passage to begin preparing.” Stakeholders should closely monitor the House’s legislative calendar and any amendments that emerge, assess how the bill’s transfer restrictions and revenue-sharing caps would affect current roster management and NIL contract structures, and review compliance frameworks for the new agent registry and reporting requirements. Institutions that want to be ready should focus on the following:

Audit existing NIL and revenue-sharing agreements. Review current athlete agreements against the bill’s legitimate-business-purpose and market-value requirements, and identify any contract terms that interact with the one-transfer rule and eligibility pause.
Map donor and collective relationships. Identify boosters, collectives, and other parties that may qualify as associated entities under the House settlement definition, which reaches, among others, individuals who have given more than $50,000 to the athletics program. Sponsorship arrangements that route money to the roster should be revisited now.
Build a reporting and intake process. Put systems in place to capture athlete-reported deals above $600 within the five-day window, and train athletes and staff on the obligation.
Tie academic performance to budget planning. Because retention-fund eligibility depends on graduation and academic progress benchmarks, compliance should model where the institution stands before relying on above-cap spending.
Prepare for agent regulation. Develop protocols to verify agent registration and the 5% fee cap, since athletic departments have been operating in a largely unregulated agent market. The FTC’s January 12, 2026, inquiry letters to 20 Division I universities under SPARTA already signal growing federal interest in this area.
Review insurance and medical-cost coverage. Confirm that catastrophic injury coverage and post-eligibility medical obligations can be met, and price the long-tail cost of the five-year coverage requirement.
Revisit coaching contracts and conference obligations. In-season coaching movement limits and media-rights pooling will affect employment agreements and conference-level commitments.
Keep a Title IX and employment-status contingency plan. Neither issue is resolved by the bill, so institutions should keep monitoring the House appeal and labor developments.
Run sunset and budget scenarios. Model the financial effects of the House settlement’s expiration and the retention fund’s nine-year sunset, including academic-benchmark contingencies.
Build third-party certification protocols. Establish certification procedures for multimedia rights holders, sponsors, apparel companies, and vendors involved in NIL arrangements.
Inventory foreign-funding disclosures. Identify amounts over $600 received from foreign adversaries, state-owned enterprises, and sovereign wealth funds and prepare the required reporting process.
Review state-law litigation exposure. Reassess personal-injury, civil-rights, contract, consumer-protection, and similar claims in light of narrowed preemption and the private right of action.
Check roster and scholarship baselines. Compare current women’s and Olympic sports rosters and scholarship levels against 2024-25 baselines.
Review conference realignment and media-rights strategy. Assess the implications of the 20-member ceiling, power-conference limits, independent period, media-rights restrictions, and pooling requirements.

Whether the bill reaches the President’s desk in its current form, is modified in the House, or ultimately stalls, the direction of travel is clear: federal regulation of college sports is no longer a hypothetical — it is an active legislative reality that demands attention.

June 3, 2026June 4, 2026 by Andrew John (AJ) Rudowitz

The Protect College Sports Act: What Universities and Conferences Need to Know

On May 27, 2026, Senators Cruz and Cantwell announced the Protect College Sports Act, a sweeping bipartisan bill that represents the most comprehensive federal attempt yet to impose legal order on college athletics. For universities and conferences, the significance of this legislation cannot be overstated. The bill would grant the NCAA and the College Sports Commission a long-sought limited antitrust exemption, enabling them to enforce rules governing athlete eligibility, transfers, and compensation ostensibly without the constant threat of state court litigation or competing state NIL regimes. The attempted antitrust shield, which has eluded the industry through years of failed legislative attempts – including the recently withdrawn SCORE Act – is the structural foundation on which the rest of the bill’s reforms rest. At the same time, the bill formalizes key elements of the House v. NCAA settlement into federal law, codifying the revenue-sharing framework while empowering the College Sports Commission (CSC) to police alleged above-cap spending – which the CSC has asserted includes the redirecting of corporate sponsorship dollars to rosters as third-party NIL to circumvent the $21.3 million annual cap.

For some programs utilizing creative measures to compensate their athletes, passage of this bill would represent a fundamental change in the compliance environment. The bill also limits in-season coaching movement, prohibits the formation of a so-called super league, creates an agent registry capping representation fees at 5%, and permits the pooling of media rights – all provisions that carry direct contractual and governance consequences for athletic departments and conference offices.

If this bill is enacted into law, institutions will face substantial operational and legal challenges. The transfer restriction provisions alone – limiting athletes to one transfer before a mandatory eligibility pause, with narrow exceptions – will require universities to revisit their roster management strategies, revisit NIL and revenue-sharing contract structures, and reexamine how those agreements interact with transfer portal activity. The bill’s provisions around athlete health, safety, and academic protections establish new mandatory standards that institutions will be required to meet, creating potential exposure for schools that fall short. The agent registry and fee-cap provisions will require robust compliance frameworks for athletic departments accustomed to operating in a largely unregulated agent market. And, while codifying the House settlement structure may bring stability, it also locks institutions into a compensation model still under active appellate review for its Title IX implications.. Equally notable is what the bill does not resolve: it leaves the employment status of athletes largely open, explicitly preserving the possibility that athletes could eventually be deemed employees or pursue collective bargaining. For institutions, that means managing long-term labor risk under a federal framework that has not foreclosed the most consequential question in the industry.

The path to enactment remains uncertain. The bill’s reception has already revealed fault lines within the industry itself, as the SEC and Big Ten commissioners were notably absent from a letter endorsing the bill signed by ACC and Big 12 leadership, and SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has publicly questioned the process of endorsing legislation before reviewing the final draft. Nonetheless, the bipartisan architecture of the bill gives it a realistic chance of advancing further than its predecessors. Universities and conferences should not wait for final passage to begin preparing. The attorneys at Duane Morris’s Sports Law Group are closely monitoring the bill’s progress and are available to assist universities, conferences, and other industry stakeholders in navigating the legal implications as this legislation develops.

December 17, 2025December 17, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

University of Utah Advances Private Equity Model for College Athletics Funding

The University of Utah is advancing a groundbreaking agreement with private-equity firm Otro Capital that is expected to generate more than $500 million for its athletics program. The deal creates a new for-profit entity, Utah Brands & Entertainment LLC, which will manage the commercial and revenue operations of the school’s athletic department, such as sponsorships, ticketing, licensing, concessions, and media-related revenue. The University of Utah will retain majority ownership and board control, while Otro Capital and a select group of major donors will acquire minority stakes.

This arrangement represents a significant shift in how a public university structures and finances its athletics operations. By blending private investment with donor participation, the model provides access to substantial capital at a time when athletic departments face rising costs tied to facilities, NIL activity, and anticipated revenue-sharing with student athletes. It also introduces new legal considerations, including governance design, transparency obligations for a for-profit entity attached to a public institution, and potential securities and conflict-of-interest issues arising from donor-investors gaining equity positions.

The partnership may also signal a broader trend toward hybrid public-private financing in college sports. The University of Utah is not the first to spin off its athletic department’s revenue streams into a private entity. However, the creation of a new for-profit entity, one that is majority-owned by the school but supported by private investors, underscores how rapidly the financial pressures of college sports are accelerating. Rising operational costs, the expansion of NIL opportunities, and the likelihood of direct revenue sharing with athletes have pushed universities to explore alternative funding mechanisms. For college athletics more broadly, the University of Utah’s model may become a blueprint. By blending university control with outside capital and professionalized operational management, the structure is designed to meet the commercial realities of today’s sports landscape while still preserving institutional oversight. If successful, this could influence everything from facilities funding and media rights strategy to athlete compensation and long-term planning. It also raises larger questions about how institutions reconcile what they have long dubbed as “amateurism” and their mission, with the sport’s growing commercial pressures.

Ultimately, the deal signals a broader evolution: college athletics is moving quickly toward professionalized, capital-intensive operations, and private equity (or debt) is likely to become a more common part of that ecosystem.

December 9, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

Georgia Seeks Enforcement of Liquidated Damages Provision in Ongoing NIL Conflict

The University of Georgia, through the University’s athletic association (UGAA), is seeking damages totaling $390,000 against a former football player, Damon Wilson II, after he elected to transfer to Missouri following the 2024 season. The demand stems from a clause in Wilson’s NIL contract that required him to forfeit the balance of his agreement if he transferred to another school.

Wilson signed a 14-month NIL deal in December 2024 through a third-party collective, reportedly worth $500,000 if he completed the full term. Payments were structured as monthly installments of $30,000, with two additional $40,000 bonuses contingent on compliance through future transfer-portal windows. The contract, however, also contained a liquidated-damages provision requiring that if Wilson left the team or entered the transfer portal, he would owe the remaining value of the contract in a lump sum. After reportedly receiving only one monthly payment before declaring his intent to transfer, the University—through its athletic association—has asserted that he now owes $390,000 under the exit clause.

This lawsuit carries outsized significance because it may become one of the first true test cases on the enforceability of buyout-style and liquidated-damages provisions in NIL agreements. To date, such clauses have been rare, largely untested, and clouded by uncertainty under traditional contract principles. A judicial decision upholding UGAA’s position could set a powerful precedent—effectively signaling to schools, collectives, and athletes nationwide that exit-fee mechanisms are viable and enforceable. Such a ruling could rapidly accelerate the adoption of buyout provisions across NIL contracts and fundamentally reshape the architecture of athlete compensation and mobility in the NIL era.

At the same time, the case squarely presents the question of whether the $390,000 figure represents a legitimate, good faith estimate of the collective’s anticipated losses or whether it crosses the line into an unenforceable penalty. Under longstanding contract law principles, liquidated-damages provisions are permissible only when they reasonably approximate the actual harm expected at the time of contracting. If a court concludes that the amount is disproportionate, punitive, or untethered to any measurable loss, the clause could be struck down as an impermissible penalty. Such a ruling could have an immediate effect on NIL and revenue share agreements across the country, as many contain similar purported liquidated damages provisions.

Wilson’s case could ultimately help set the first meaningful precedent on whether liquidated-damages clauses can function as an effective and legally defensible substitute for traditional buyout fees. If courts bless this model, it may open the door to a new era in NIL contracting—one in which exit-fee structures become a standard tool for shaping athlete mobility, program stability, and the broader economics of college sports.

November 26, 2025November 26, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

NCAA Resets Rules on Student-Athlete Betting on Professional Sports

In a notable rebuke to the Division I Council’s recent policy push, NCAA Division I member schools have voted by a two-thirds majority to rescind a previously approved rule change that would have allowed student-athletes and athletics department staff to place wagers on professional sports. The proposal—introduced by the Council in October and scheduled to take effect on November 22, 2025—triggered swift and widespread backlash across the sports, media, and entertainment sectors. Following a 30-day review period, more than 240 Division I institutions voted to roll back the measure, reaffirming the NCAA’s longstanding prohibition on all forms of sports betting by student-athletes and athletics personnel.

Recent Investigations Heightening Scrutiny

Critics of the proposed rule change warned that the measure carried significant risks for the integrity of both collegiate and professional competition. Opponents emphasized that permitting student-athletes to wager on the very professional leagues they hope to enter could create inherent conflicts of interest, particularly in light of their relationships with scouts, prospective teammates, and coaches. They also cautioned that access to privileged or insider information—whether obtained intentionally or inadvertently—could undermine competitive fairness and expose student-athletes to substantial legal, ethical, and compliance concerns.

In line with the integrity risks, the NCAA’s reversal comes in the wake of several high-profile scandals, which likely contributed to the NCAA’s decision. For example, just days after the NCAA’s proposal was announced in October, certain NBA players were charged in a federal gambling investigation for allegedly sharing inside information and manipulating their performance, and certain MLB players were charged on counts including wire fraud and conspiracy to influence sporting events. In the college game, the NCAA permanently revoked the eligibility of numerous Division I men’s basketball players for placing bets on their own games, sharing inside information, and manipulating performance to influence prop bets and has announced ongoing investigations against many more, involving allegations of wagering on their own contests, sharing non-public information, and attempting to influence game outcomes.

The membership vote reflects a recalibration by the NCAA, which appeared poised to capitalize on the expanding legalized sports-wagering market by relaxing its long-standing restrictions. But the recent wave of high-profile gambling investigations likely underscored the inherent risks of such a change. In effect, while the sports-betting industry continues its rapid growth, the NCAA has stepped back from a policy that might have opened the door to new revenue opportunities—pulling the proposal before it ever truly got off the sideline.

November 14, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

Athlete to Owner: JuJu Watkins Joins Boston Legacy Football Club Investor Group

USC women’s basketball star JuJu Watkins has made history as the first known college athlete to directly invest in a professional women’s sports franchise. Watkins has joined the investor group behind Boston Legacy FC, the NWSL expansion club set to debut in 2026.

Watkins’ move reflects a growing trend: elite college athletes are increasingly using their Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) earnings not only for endorsement deals, but to participate in the same types of long-term investment opportunities available to professional athletes.

NIL: From Endorsement Deals to Equity

Watkins’ investment is a powerful example of the continued evolution of the NIL marketplace, but it also highlights a new set of legal considerations. Equity stakes—particularly in professional sports franchises—carry potential complications, including:

Securities law compliance and investor-qualification requirements
Conflict-of-interest concerns
School, conference, and NCAA amateurism rules
Employment-status implications

Here, Watkins’ interest appears to be structured as a passive, minority investment in a privately held entity, a design that helps preserve NCAA eligibility and avoids triggering employment classification issues. Even so, athlete-investors must navigate the same risks as any private investor, making careful legal review essential to avoid outsized exposure or unfavorable terms.

Growing Investment Opportunities

Boston Legacy FC represents an attractive investment platform in a rapidly expanding women’s sports ecosystem. The club features a women-led ownership group and continues to draw significant capital commitments and prominent investors—now including Watkins, alongside Indiana Fever star Aliyah Boston, Olympic gymnast Aly Raisman, actress and director Elizabeth Banks, and former USC standout and current Chicago Bears quarterback Caleb Williams. This investor profile underscores the accelerating momentum behind women’s sports as a growth asset class—on and off the field.

As college athletes become stakeholders—not just endorsers—they will play a larger role in shaping both the NIL landscape and the broader sports-business ecosystem. Watkins’ investment is an early glimpse of that shift: the rise of the athlete-owner beginning at the collegiate level.

August 13, 2025August 13, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

Nevada Supreme Court Rejects NFL’s Bid to Force Coach Jon Gruden into Arbitration

The battle between former Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden and the NFL took a significant turn this week when the Nevada Supreme Court refused to force Gruden’s claims into arbitration. Gruden’s lawsuit alleges that the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell intentionally leaked private emails, triggering his resignation and damaging his reputation. The court’s ruling not only revives Gruden’s case in open court, as opposed to private and confidential arbitration, but also raises broader questions about the limits of arbitration clauses in professional sports contracts, particularly when the party seeking to compel arbitration is dealing with a former employee.

Arbitration Clauses, Unconscionability, and Former-Employee Status

In its August 11, 2025, decision, the Nevada Supreme Court, by a 5–2 vote, reversed a May 2024 panel ruling that favored arbitration. The majority found that the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision was unconscionable as applied to Gruden. The court rejected the NFL’s attempt to invoke equitable estoppel to bind him to arbitration, holding that such doctrines do not apply to former employees in these circumstances. As a result, the trial court’s earlier refusal to compel arbitration stands, allowing Gruden’s case to proceed in a public forum.

Impact on the Litigation and the NFL’s Next Moves

The decision is a clear victory for Gruden, whose legal team framed it as an important win for employees challenging arbitration provisions they never expressly agreed to, or that no longer apply due to a change in status. For the NFL, the ruling is a setback but not necessarily the end of the road. The league has indicated it will explore further appeals, potentially including a rehearing before the Nevada Supreme Court or even review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Broader Implications for Sports Law

Beyond the immediate parties, the case underscores an emerging tension in sports law: the balance between enforcing arbitration clauses, which leagues often rely upon to resolve disputes privately, and ensuring that such clauses remain fair and enforceable under state law. For practitioners, this ruling is a reminder to closely examine the scope, applicability, and procedural fairness of arbitration provisions, and particularly where a dispute involves former employees or matters that extend beyond the employment relationship.

July 25, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

A Wave of Federal NIL Action Signals Big Changes Ahead

Over the past several weeks, there has been a surge of federal government activity aimed at reshaping the landscape of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights in college athletics. From executive action to competing congressional bills, lawmakers and regulators are moving quickly to impose structure on what has become a chaotic and state-by-state patchwork. These developments carry major implications for both student-athletes and the institutions that support them.

Executive Action Brings New Urgency to NIL Reform

On July 24, 2025, the federal government took its most assertive step yet in regulating the NIL landscape. A new executive order prohibits third-party pay-for-play arrangements masked as NIL deals, directs several federal agencies to begin developing a framework for college athletics, which includes clarifying the employment status of student-athletes, and requiring protections for scholarships and non-revenue sports. While it stops short of creating new law, the order reflects growing momentum toward reining in the patchwork of state NIL regimes and restoring a more standardized framework for college athletics.

The SCORE Act Gains Traction in Congress

Meanwhile, the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act continues to move forward in the U.S. House of Representatives. The proposed legislation would establish a national NIL standard, affirm that student-athletes are not employees, protect medical and academic resources, and provide liability shields to the NCAA and conferences under antitrust law, which is the only real way to protect the NCAA from continuous antitrust lawsuits. Supporters argue that the bill offers stability and clarity for athletes and institutions alike. However, critics caution that it could restrict athletes’ rights, especially in how it limits avenues for economic advancement and collective representation.

Athletes.org Advocates for a Different Path

In response, Athletes.org has backed an alternative federal bill—the College SPORTS Act—which focuses on athlete protections, health and safety standards, and preserving NIL rights without expanding employer-employee classifications. The legislation reinforces athletes’ ability to earn fair compensation through NIL deals while safeguarding against institutional retaliation. Unlike the SCORE Act, this proposal leans more heavily into athlete empowerment and transparency, reflecting a growing demand from current and former players for more robust legal protections and economic opportunities.

What This Means for Athletes and Universities

These developments are poised to reshape the legal and regulatory environment for universities and athletes alike. Institutions must prepare for potential changes in compliance obligations, athlete support standards, and NIL oversight. At the same time, athletes and their representatives should monitor the evolving legislative landscape to ensure their rights and opportunities are protected. Law firms advising in this space should remain agile—helping clients navigate shifting federal and state frameworks and aligning advocacy strategies with whatever direction NIL reform ultimately takes.

June 16, 2025September 4, 2026 by Bryan Shapiro

The First Challenge to House v. NCAA: Female Student Athletes Claim Backpay Provision Violates Title IX

Just days after the House v. NCAA settlement was approved, the first appeal of the order was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based on Title IX concerns. On June 11, 2025, eight female athletes argued that women will not receive their fair share of the $2.8 billion in back-pay for athletes who were previously barred from profiting off their name, image, and likeness (NIL). This marks the first legal challenge to the landmark House settlement, but it is unlikely to be the last.

The appeal centers on the settlement’s “back-pay” provision, claiming that the proposed payment formula “would be a massive error causing irreparable harm to women’s sports.” While the provision compensates eligible student-athletes for earnings dating back to 2016, the amounts vary based on individual circumstances. According to the appellants, this approach results in female athletes receiving significantly less than their male counterparts—an alleged shortfall of roughly $1.1 billion out of the total $2.8 billion settlement fund. They contend this disparity violates Title IX’s mandate for gender equity.

The appellants further argue that “[t]he settlement suggests schools would have paid male athletes over 90% of their revenue over the past six years as though Title IX didn’t apply.” Under Title IX, any college or university accepting federal funds is prohibited from sex-based discrimination. If schools or conferences acting on their behalf violate this standard, the appellants argue that the law has been breached. Simply put, schools can “either pay the athletes proportionately, or they can return all of their federal funds. But they can’t do both.”

For now, the court has stayed the back-pay portion of the settlement, delaying payments until the appeal is resolved. This appeal is likely to delay distribution of the settlement funds and could invite further challenges on similar Title IX grounds.

We will continue monitoring this case closely as it develops, given its significant implications for NIL rights and gender equity in collegiate sports.

April 10, 2025September 4, 2026 by Bryan Shapiro

Jaden Rashada’s Claims Move Forward in Major NIL Litigation: Rashada v. Hathcock et al.

On April 8, 2025, Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida ruled that the majority of claims asserted in Jaden Rashada’s lawsuit against University of Florida (“UF”) head coach Billy Napier, former UF director of NIL and player engagement Marcus Castro-Walker, and well-known UF booster and President of Velocity Automotive Solutions LLC (“Velocity”), Hugh Hathcock, will survive the defendants’ motions to dismiss and proceed to discovery. The case centers on Rashada’s allegations of fraudulent inducement and related claims tied to a Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreement with the University of Florida, facilitated by the defendants. While Rashada’s claims of tortious interference were dismissed, the court allowed his fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims to move forward. As previously discussed in this blog, the lawsuit, filed by Rashada in May 2023, stems from a four-year, $13.85 million contract that influenced his decision to flip his commitment from Miami to Florida in November 2022.

More specifically, and with respect to the Court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss fraud claims, the court found that Rashada had sufficiently alleged fraudulent inducement by the defendants. Specifically, the complaint detailed how the defendants, acting through their roles at Velocity, made false promises regarding NIL opportunities to secure Rashada’s commitment to UF. The Court noted that these promises were alleged to have been made without the intent to fulfill them, aiming instead to benefit UF’s football program and enhance Velocity’s reputation. The Court also rejected defendants’ argument that Rashada failed to plead fraud with particularity, as required by the Rule 9(b) heightened pleading standard for fraud claims. The Court held that the complaint alleged specific facts detailing the fraudulent scheme, including communications and actions taken by the defendants that misled Rashada, which satisfied Rule 9(b). The Court also upheld the claim that Velocity aided and abetted the fraudulent actions, finding that Velocity, through its executives—e.g., Hathcock—had knowledge of the fraudulent scheme and provided substantial assistance in its execution.

Interestingly, the Court chose to essentially “punt” on the issue of sovereign immunity that defendants Napier and Castro-Walker raised in their motions to dismiss the complaint. Sovereign immunity, which protects state employees from lawsuits in certain circumstances, was raised by the defendants as a defense, but the Court ruled that it was premature to decide this matter at the motion to dismiss stage. The question of whether sovereign immunity applies to Napier and Castro-Walker will be explored further as the case progresses and is certainly an issue that all public institutions should be following closely.

Overall, this order is significant as it allows Rashada’s fraud-related claims to proceed, highlighting the Court’s recognition of the complexities involved in NIL agreements and the responsibilities of entities facilitating such arrangements. The decision underscores the importance of transparency and integrity in contractual negotiations within the collegiate sports arena. The Court’s ruling in Rashada v. Hathcock serves as a critical reminder of the legal obligations schools, coaches, boosters and collectives owe to student athletes in their NIL contractual relationships and negotiations. It remains to be seen if this case will actually proceed meaningfully through discovery or if a settlement is now imminent.