New York’s Name, Image, and Likeness Law is a Detriment to the Collegiate Athletes

Local news in New York lauded the progress that lawmakers made in regard to name, image, and likeness (NIL) at the end of last year.

Headlines read ” Name, image and likeness rights for collegiate athletes coming to NY,” and New York Governor Hochul stated, "Our collegiate student athletes are heroes on the field - and they deserve to be treated like heroes even after the final whistle.” 

But what lies underneath the legislation is much less worthy of excitement and not at all indicative of hero status. 

While much of the language is boilerplate to NIL legislation, there is enough controversial language that Forbes wrote an article titled “New York’s New Name, Image And Likeness Law Hardly Protects College Athletes.”

Perhaps the most glaring part of Senate Bill S5891F is that a collegiate athlete must disclose the proposed deal to the university before signing.

The bill reads, “A student-athlete who enters into a contract providing compensation to the student-athlete for the use of the student-athlete’s name, image, or likeness shall disclose the contract in advance of executing it to an official of the college, as designated by the college.”

How is legalese like this reflective of the professional business world that many of these college athletes will enter into? It would be unheard of for a party to be required to show a contract to another party for approval if they have nothing to do with the deal.

Not only does that not reflect the real business world, but needing the college’s approval will likely slow down the speed of the deal execution. It is not improbable to assume that students could lose deals due to the red tape and slow response time of overbooked university staff.

In addition to advanced disclosure, universities have the power to shut down a deal for many reasons, some of which are highly questionable. For example, a college athlete is not allowed to miss class to execute a deal. Additionally, if the college has a sponsor and the college athletes' proposed sponsor “offers products or services within the same category,” the athletes cannot move forward with the deal. This isn’t even in reference to direct competitors of university sponsors. 

For example, a New York University could shut down a NIL deal a student has with Lululemon for their yoga mats because they already have a sponsor in the sports apparel category, even if it has nothing to do with yoga mats. 

As Forbes puts it, “In its final form, the state law may do more to protect the interests of New York colleges than their elite athletes.”