From Field to Finance: The Regulation of Athlete Investing in the NIL Era
Since the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (“NCAA”) 2021 decision, student athletes can monetize their name, image and likeness (“NIL”). NIL agreements, which are subject to contract law, statutes, and university policies, authorize third parties to provide compensation to athletes in return for using their NIL.
As reported by Reuters, “athlete investing” remains controversial. Advocates highlight the importance of providing financial security to young athletes, while critics focus on the exploitative aspect of these agreements, especially for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds who may not have the guidance needed to appreciate the implications.
The agreement between Big League Advantage (“BLA”) and Gervon Dexter Sr., a former University of Florida football player selected in the second round of the 2023 NFL draft, illustrates potential issues with athlete investing. Dexter reportedly challenged the contract in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, arguing that the agreement is void because it violates (i) Florida’s NIL statute that was in effect at the time the contract was executed, and (ii) the University of Florida’s rules surrounding NIL. Notably, the previous statute held that an NIL contract “may not extend beyond [an athlete’s] participation in a [college] athletic program” and may not provide a student-athlete compensation “in exchange for athletic performance”.
The lawsuit raises questions about who, if anyone, should oversee NIL agreements involving amateur athletes. Additionally, it emphasizes the potential injustice of constraining young athletes with contracts that were agreed upon well before their professional careers gain momentum.
The NCAA’s 2021 decision has resulted in varied regulation, and Dexter’s legal challenge also underscores ambiguities in its implementation. The consequences of the Dexter v. Big League Advance Fund II, LP case and whether it will provide clarity on the matter are yet to be determined.
Author: Emily Groper, 2023/2024 Articling Student-At-Law
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@schuh
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…