Bar endorsement deals for student-athletes

Summary#

A-11712 would amend New York’s Education Law, section 6438-c. Its stated aim is to bar student-athletes from entering certain paid name, image, or likeness (NIL) endorsement contracts. The bill is introduced and not law; whether it will pass is uncertain.

  • A student-athlete would be prohibited from entering a contract paying them for an endorsement of tobacco, alcohol, illegal substances or activities, banned athletic substances, or gambling or gaming, including sports wagering.
  • The ban would apply to contracts entered into on or after the bill takes effect. The bill says it would take effect immediately if enacted.
  • The bill places the prohibition on student-athletes. It does not set out a separate duty or penalty for a business offering or entering such a contract.

What it means for you#

  • Student-athletes: If the bill became law, you could not enter a new paid NIL endorsement contract for any of the listed categories. The text does not say that existing contracts would be affected.
  • Businesses and potential endorsers: The bill does not expressly prohibit you from offering a contract or set out a penalty for you. The athlete would be prohibited from entering the contract.
  • Colleges and other institutions: The bill does not assign you a role in reviewing contracts or enforcing the ban.
  • General public: The bill does not directly change taxes, student-athlete eligibility, or NIL contracts for endorsements outside the listed categories.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill does not authorize spending, create a fee or fine, or provide for staffing.
  • It does not estimate costs for student-athletes, institutions, or businesses.

What is unclear#

  • The Education Law section being amended was not supplied, so existing NIL rules and how this ban would fit with current law could not be verified.
  • The bill does not define “banned athletic substances,” “illegal activities,” or “gaming.”
  • It does not specify who would enforce the prohibition, how alleged violations would be handled, or whether any penalty would apply.
  • The bill does not explain how student-athletes or institutions would determine whether a contract or endorsement falls within the ban.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it would draw a clear line against student-athletes being paid to endorse the listed products and activities.
  • The ban applies to endorsement contracts, rather than to all NIL contracts. That limits the restriction to the categories named in the bill.

Case against#

  • The prohibition covers broad categories, including “any form” of gambling or gaming, but the bill does not define their boundaries.
  • The bill places the restriction on the athlete without explaining how athletes can check contracts or what happens if a contract’s status is disputed.
  • Because the bill does not describe enforcement or penalties, it is unclear how the prohibition would work in practice.