NCAA Board green lights formally drafting new NIL policy

The NCAA has moved a step closer to formalizing a new NIL policy.

The NCAA Division I Board of Directors instructed the Division I Council on Wednesday to develop new NIL proposals. They include formulating a registration process for NIL service providers – such as agents and collectives – creating a standardized contract or standard contract terms and establishing disclosure requirements for student-athletes to provide transparency about NIL activities.

On Wednesday, the Board received a summary report from last week’s two-day NIL stakeholders meeting to answer important questions that will frame the NCAA’s NIL strategy moving forward: In which direction should the Board steer the NIL working group? How broad of an NIL policy should the working group draft?

“The message was clear from the stakeholders that the association should develop reasonable protections that increase transparency without limiting student-athletes’ NIL opportunities,” Lynda Tealer, chair of the Division I Council and the working group, said in a statement. “I believe the working group has laid out clear direction, thanks to input from many with firsthand experience with NIL activity, including student-athletes, to do exactly that: increase transparency, put in place protections and support college athletes as they pursue these opportunities.”

Notably, the subjects of enforcement and the ongoing collision of new, school-friendly state NIL laws with NCAA guidelines were not major issues discussed in last week’s meetings, multiple sources said.

What is the timeline for NIL reform?

In terms of a timeline, after the working group drafts the policy, it will hand it off to the Division I Council in October. The Board saw and heard about concepts on Wednesday. There was no expectation that legislation would be drafted to be adopted at this point.

Any legislative proposals developed will follow the normal process. After it is introduced to the Council in October, it will be circulated to membership, voted on by the Council in January and voted on by the Board in January.

“The Board has reserved NIL as an issue that they are very interested in and they want to take the lead on,” Tealer told On3 on Monday.

After assessing the primary concepts discussed by the working group, the Board recommended what concepts it would like to see addressed in an evolved NIL policy. The Board could have proceeded in any number of directions, including for the working group to pursue a narrow proposal, a more ambitious one, or something in between. 

The working group asked for a charge related to the topics that the Board approved. A registry, database and uniform contracts were the primary consensus points from the stakeholders meeting.

“Other areas of concern — recruiting, institutional involvement — remain on the working group’s agenda,” a source with direct knowledge of the meetings told On3. “But any work there will come after proposals are developed in the registry, disclosure and contract areas. The Board didn’t discuss a broad Plan B, and the working group did not ask them to.”

‘We need to do something’ with NIL reform

The NIL working group has been tasked with drafting a quasi-backup plan – a so-called Plan B – in case the NCAA’s aggressive lobbying efforts with Congress do not yield federal legislation.

Evolving its interim policy – buttressing the underpinning of the space – does not reflect a strategy pivot, another source said. Work to secure a federal NIL bill – several bill drafts have circulated in recent weeks – continues and remains paramount.

“The board believes the Association must use the tools at our disposal to improve outcomes for student-athletes when it comes to NIL activity, but there are some things we believe only Congress can address,” said Jere Morehead, chair of the Division I Board of Directors and president at the University of Georgia. “We have seen good progress on Capitol Hill recently, and while that process advances, we are moving ahead to do what we can to increase transparency and establish standards so student-athletes can pursue these NIL opportunities.

Stakeholders say there is more work for the NCAA ahead to address pain points in the NIL space.

Asked Monday if the progress by the NIL working group, to date, is enough to properly reform the space, Big Sky Commissioner Tom Wistrcill told On3, “We need to do something, and so far we haven’t been able to do anything. State laws have gotten so crazy that we’ve got to get to a point where we can at least level-set the field. And then we have to give it some time and evaluate how this is going to work. 

“What we have figured out over the last year or two is that what we are doing now ain’t working. It’s gotten to a point where it’s totally pay-for-play. I’d rather just try something and not have it work than do nothing and continue down this path. It’s just gotten really ugly in the space.”

‘Paralyzed in our inability to pass rules’

Among the items on the NCAA’s wishlist for the federal bill is a national NIL standard that preempts the patchwork of state NIL laws. In recent months, a handful of new, school-friendly state laws have been enacted to give in-state schools advantages. Those advantages include prohibiting the NCAA from policing certain NIL activities.

The NCAA in recent weeks issued a memo in which it said schools must adhere to the association’s guidelines when they conflict with NIL laws in those respective states. But the NCAA remains fearful of policing the space because it’s increasingly vulnerable to litigation. 

Val Ackerman, the Big East Conference commissioner, said during LEAD1 Association meetings this spring: “We’re sort of paralyzed now in our inability to pass rules. That was [caused by] Alston, which called into question the NCAA rule-making authority. That, I think, has been debilitating.”

The NCAA last week in Indianapolis convened a wide swath of industry leaders, including student-athletes, for the two-day meeting. The purpose was to solicit additional feedback on an array of policy concepts from a broad audience. 

First-year NCAA President Charlie Baker has publicly stated that he covets consumer protection measures, some of which were discussed with the Board today. Stakeholders have stressed upgrading the NIL policy does not mean they are not walking the landscape back to a pre-NIL era.

“There is no effort to reduce access to NIL opportunities for students,” Tealer said. “Bringing some transparency into the process was discussed. As was the notion that even with the assistance of Congress, there is room for the NCAA to operate to add some stability and clarity to the NIL environment.”