Frieser Legal

Category: Uncategorized

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules in Favor of the WIAA in Halter Case

    In a decision issued on April 8, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling in favor of high school wrestler Hayden Halter, upholding the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association’s (WIAA) interpretation and application of its suspension rules.

    Background

    In February 2019, Hayden Halter, a sophomore wrestler at Waterford Union High School, was ejected from a varsity wrestling meet due to two unsportsmanlike conduct violations. According to WIAA’s rules at the time, such an ejection required the athlete to serve a suspension during the “next competitive event.” Halter attempted to serve this suspension by sitting out a junior varsity meet before the regional tournament. However, the WIAA determined that this did not satisfy the suspension requirement, asserting that the “next competitive event” referred to the next varsity-level competition, which was the regional tournament.

    Halter and his father filed a civil action to prevent the WIAA from barring him from postseason competition. The circuit court issued a temporary restraining order, allowing Halter to compete, and he went on to win the state championship. The circuit court later ruled in favor of the WIAA, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that (1) the WIAA is a state actor under the Supreme Court’s Brentwood standard and (2) the WIAA acted arbitrarily in interpreting and applying its Rules of Eligibility.

    Supreme Court’s Decision

    After granting the WIAA’s petition for review, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling. The majority concluded that even under certiorari review, the WIAA acted within reason in applying its interpretation of the suspension rule. The Court emphasized the WIAA’s longstanding published guidance, including examples showing that suspensions for varsity-level conduct must be served at the next varsity event—not a lower-level competition. The Court also highlighted that the rules and interpretations had been clearly communicated to schools prior to the postseason.

    Importantly, the Court declined to rule on whether the WIAA is a state actor under the Brentwood “substantial entwinement” standard, avoiding a potentially precedent-setting constitutional question. While the question was answered in the affirmative by the Court of Appeals in this case, the decision is reversed by the Supreme Court, even though it did not address the issue. The Supreme Court also did not decide whether WIAA decisions are generally subject to certiorari review, assuming for purposes of the opinion that they were—and still siding with the Association.

    A dissent by Chief Justice Annette Ziegler criticized the majority for deferring to the WIAA’s interpretations, arguing they lacked consistency and transparency. Most important to her dissent, the Chief Justice argued that the majority opinion failed to meaningfully develop the law or answer questions that have statewide importance.

    While the WIAA’s status as a state actor under the Brentwood standard has evaded judicial review for more than two decades (aside from the now overruled decision from the Court of Appeals), the Wisconsin Supreme Court missed an opportunity to address the question and provide meaningful guidance to lower courts in future cases between Wisconsin high school athletes and the WIAA.

    Implications

    This decision represents a major win for the WIAA, reaffirming its authority to interpret its own eligibility rules and apply them in ways courts will typically not second guess, provided they act reasonably and within published guidance. Further, this ruling underscores the deference courts may give to athletic associations like the WIAA in interpreting their own rules, provided their decisions are reasonable and not arbitrary. It also clarifies that under certiorari review, courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the organization unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.

    For student-athletes and WIAA member schools, this decision highlights the importance of understanding and adhering to the interpretations and applications of rules by governing bodies like the WIAA. It also illustrates the challenges in seeking judicial relief against such organizations’ decisions. With the state Supreme Court declining to provide clarity on the WIAA’s status as a state actor, it remains unclear whether high school student-athletes in Wisconsin are entitled to the constitutional protections (e.g., freedom of speech and due process) afforded to individuals that are regulated by state actors.

  • Frieser Legal Named to Top 100 Law Firms with Sports Practices for 2025

    For the second year in a row, Frieser Legal has been named to Hackney Publications’ list of Top 100 Law Firms with Sports Practices. The list is published “with the goal of providing the sports industry with a guidebook to the top 100 law firms with an exemplary sports law practice.” Hackney Publications is the nation’s leading publisher of sports law periodicals. Frieser Legal’s sports law practice is led by Principal Attorney Joshua Frieser.

    With a focus on intercollegiate athletics, Frieser Legal represents clients in athletics governing body regulatory affairs, name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements, sport sponsorship and licensing contracts, and in related intellectual property and corporate matters. The firm provides counsel to athletes on a variety of legal matters, including eligibility and disciplinary proceedings, agency representation agreements, NIL contracts, and intellectual property. Additionally, we provide legal support to sports agencies, serve as outside general counsel to various sports industry ventures, and advise corporate sponsors of athletes and sports properties.

    Related Professionals

    Joshua M. Frieser, Esq.

    Principal Attorney, Frieser Legal

    josh@frieserlegal.com | (414) 200-9199

    Joshua M. Frieser, Esq. is a sports and business lawyer and Principal Attorney at Frieser Legal. His practice is focused on the representation of athletes, agents, and sports businesses. While working to solve the unique legal needs that they have, Josh represents athletes in internal disciplinary proceedings and NIL licensing agreements, as well as in related intellectual property and business planning matters. In addition to serving as counsel to college and professional athletes, Josh represents sports agents and sports industry ventures as outside counsel.

  • Wisconsin Football Player Granted an Injunction in Eligibility Suit Against the NCAA

    Nyzier Fourqurean, the starting cornerback for the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s football team, was granted a preliminary injunction against the NCAA for a possible fifth year of athletic eligibility. Although the NCAA has appealed the decision, this student-athlete victory—though potentially temporary—marks a significant challenge to the NCAA’s long-standing eligibility rules and highlights growing tensions between the NCAA’s governance model and the rights of student-athletes. Fourqurean’s case stems from the NCAA’s denial of an eligibility waiver request.

    The lawsuit

    Fourqurean played his first two years of football at the NCAA Division II level for Grand Valley State University (GVSU) in 2021 and 2022. Following the 2022 season at GVSU, Fourqurean transferred to Wisconsin and played in both the 2023 and 2024 seasons. Transferring to a Division I FBS university, Fourqurean’s NIL opportunities and earnings exploded, after he earned no NIL money at GVSU. In his pleadings, he stated that he expects the opportunity to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars during the 2025 football season if he is permitted to play. This argument is supported by an estimate from a sports marketing consultant, who estimates that he could earn somewhere between $250,000 and $500,000. 

    In accordance with NCAA bylaw 12.02.06, Fourqurean has used all four of his years of eligibility, even though two of those years were at the Division II level. Due to unique circumstances in Fourqurean’s life that occurred during the 2021 football season (while he played at GVSU), such as the death of his father and related mental health challenges, Wisconsin filed a waiver request asking the NCAA to grant Fourqurean a fifth year of eligibility.

    Foururean’s waiver request

    In its waiver request, Wisconsin argued that Fourqurean’s 2021 season should be treated as a redshirt year, even though he exceeded the three-game limit for Division II redshirts. Fourqurean played in 11 games in his first season at GVSU, while NCAA DII Bylaw 14.4 specifies that a year of eligibility will be used at the DII level if the player plays in three games or more.

    The basis for the waiver request laid out circumstances beyond Fourqurean’s control, such as his missing of the 2021 fall football camp due to the death of his father, his mental state being unstable, and not being prepared for the 2021 season because he was grieving. Moreover, his coach at GVSU explained that he would not have played Fourqurean at all that season but was often forced to due to other teammates injuries. Further, despite playing in 11 games, he only totaled 155 snaps, which is roughly equivalent to the total number of snaps for three games. Notwithstanding these arguments, the NCAA denied the waiver request and Fourqurean promptly filed suit against the NCAA for violating §1 of the Sherman Act. 

    Claims

    Fourqurean made two primary arguments in asking the court for relief. First, he argued that the NCAA’s rules limiting athletes to four years of eligibility during a five-year “eligibility clock” period lessened competition for roster spots, which, in turn, lessened competition for NIL earnings. Second, he argued that seasons competing at the Division II level should not count towards the four-year limit at all, pointing to the fact that NIL opportunities are comparatively almost non-existent at the Division II level. 

    The court’s ruling

    Judge Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted Fourqurean’s motion for preliminary injunction. However, he did not strike down the NCAA’s rule requiring athletes to use their four years of eligibility within five years entirely. Likewise, the judge did not hold that DII or DIII years of intercollegiate eligibility should not count towards the four-year limit. In fact, Conley specifically stated this would be inappropriate. Rather, the preliminary injunction granted is quite narrow in scope and particularly applies to the NCAA’s eligibility waiver process. The ruling instructs the NCAA that it needs to “adopt and apply meaningful exceptions to the Five-Year Rule… [that] account for competitor’s individual circumstances or provide a process that allows a student-athlete to initiate the waiver process himself.” 

    The Pavia decision 

    Shortly before the filing of Fourqurean’s complaint, another Division I football student-athlete, Diego Pavia, was granted a preliminary injunction for an extra year of eligibility. By contrast, Pavia challenged the NCAA’s four-year eligibility rule claiming that his junior college seasons should not count against him. The antitrust claim argued that the NCAA’s rule that junior college counts towards the four years of eligibility harms competition in the DI college football player market. While the decision and injunction are limited to Pavia, the NCAA has issued a “blanket waiver” granting an additional year of eligibility for the 2025-26 academic year to all student-athletes who were non-NCAA transfers. The NCAA did appeal the ruling, but a final decision is not expected until later this year.

    Like Diego Pavia, Fourqurean argued that the eligibility clock should not start until enrolling at an NCAA Division I institution. While Fourqurean argued that distinguishing NJCAA or NAIA competition years from NCAA Division II or Division III competition years would surmount to a distinction without a difference, the court found the argument unpersuasive. Otherwise, the judge found that an adoption of such a rule—which hypothetically could permit college athletes to enjoy 12 total years of playing time across all three NCAA Divisions—would “all but end any distinction between college and professional football.” While this decision may appear at odds with the decision in the Pavia case, it is worth noting that the Fourqurean court is not bound by the decision of the Pavia court and may have come to a different holding if the Pavia case had been brought before it. 

    The NCAA’s appeal to the 7th Circuit

    Since the landmark Supreme Court decision in Alston in 2021, where the Court ruled the NCAA’s restrictions on education-related benefits for college athletes violated antitrust law, opportunities for college athletes to earn NIL income and the trends of courts favoring student-athletes over the NCAA have soared. In a post-Alston world, it is no longer clear which NCAA rules will survive antitrust scrutiny. Certainly, however, the NCAA does not enjoy the presumption of validity of its inherently non-economic (e.g., eligibility rules) restrictions and deference to its rulemaking authority that it once did. 

    The NCAA has appealed the preliminary injunction in the Fourqurean case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The federal appellate court, which has tended to be a friendly forum for the NCAA in past antitrust cases (perhaps, in part, because the NCAA’s national office in Indianapolis is located within its appellate jurisdiction), will review the appeal with newly announced standards handed down by the Supreme Court in the Alston decision. 

    Since Judge Conley did not enjoin the NCAA from maintaining its Five-Year Rule generally but instructed the NCAA to create a more in-depth process for student-athletes to file eligibility waivers, the Seventh Circuit may affirm the decision. However, it is possible that the appellate court determines that the limited scope of the injunction is at odds with the Pavia decision, or that Judge Conley abused his discretion in his antitrust analysis. 

    What does this mean for other student-athletes who may have been denied an eligibility waiver?

    The NCAA is unlikely to issue a “blanket waiver” for similarly situated student-athletes—like it did for junior college transfers in the wake of the Pavia injunction—as that would result in an extra year of eligibility for any athlete who had a denial of an eligibility waiver. The injunction specifies that the NCAA is not enjoined from maintaining its Five-Year Rule of eligibility, but rather narrowly enjoins it from applying the rule without a more meaningful examination of exceptions in the individual athlete’s life.

    With that said, the NCAA has not yet come forward with a plan for how it may implement the waiver request process in the future, but it seems this could be a likely next step for the NCAA to avoid lawsuits from similarly situated athletes while the NCAA’s appeal is pending before the Seventh Circuit. Athletes that have been denied a waiver request by the NCAA should consider how the specific facts and circumstances of their career and waiver request might be analyzed by a court. Given the contemporary landscape, it is plausible that several arguments could be made in favor of a student-athlete having continuing eligibility.

    The Fourqurean case marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battles between student-athletes and the NCAA, highlighting the continuously shifting landscape of college athletics post-Alston. While the NCAA continues to defend its eligibility rules, recent legal trends suggest a growing challenge to its authority, especially regarding rules that could suppress NIL market value for collegiate athletes. 

  • AAA Publishes Due Process Guidelines for NIL Disputes

    On February 1, 2025, the American Arbitration Association published Due Process Guidelines for the Arbitration of Disputes over Sports Participation and Name, Image, and Likeness. Frieser Legal Principal Attorney Joshua Frieser served on the Sports Advisory Committee that supported the AAA in preparing these guidelines.

    The Due Process Guidelines can be viewed here: AAA Due Process Guideliness for NIL Disputes

    Related Professionals

    Joshua M. Frieser, Esq.

    Principal Attorney, Frieser Legal

    josh@frieserlegal.com | (414) 200-9199

    Joshua M. Frieser, Esq. is a sports business lawyer and Principal Attorney at Frieser Legal. His practice is focused on the representation of athletes, agents, and sports businesses. While working to solve the unique legal needs that they have, Josh represents athletes in internal disciplinary proceedings and NIL licensing agreements, as well as in related intellectual property and business planning matters. In addition to serving as counsel to college and professional athletes, Josh represents sports agents and sports industry ventures as outside counsel.

  • Effectively Navigating MOUs, Revenue Sharing, and Collective Contracts

    As the House case nears a potential settlement, Division I universities and their associated NIL collectives have established strategic plans for the dawn of the “revenue sharing era” of college sports. As the ground is shifting in the NIL world once again—perhaps more substantially than at any point before—college athletes and their agents should be prepared to effectively navigate the legal and contractual challenges that will undoubtedly arise in this new era.

    Background

    After the NCAA permitted collegiate student-athletes to monetize their name, image, and likeness on July 1, 2021, college sports entered a new era. What began with athletes being able to monetize their right of publicity (i.e., sign endorsement deals), NIL quickly shifted to a quasi pay-for-play model in which NIL collectives—legal entities funded by groups of donors—sought to pool funds to entice student-athletes to attend their preferred university.

    Current Landscape

    Since the beginning of NIL, collectives have become substantially more robust. Now, many are comprehensive operations with full-time fundraising staff, official partnerships with universities, and multimillion-dollar budgets. Many college athletes have agreements in place with NIL collectives (some are long-term deals, and some are worth several million dollars) that are set to be substantially impacted by the House settlement.

    The House Case

    The House case is a class action antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and its members which originated in 2020. The plaintiffs and the NCAA and Power 5 conferences (all of which are defendants) have preliminarily agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement to resolve the case. While the agreed-upon damages are substantial and will impact current and former college athletes significantly, the proposed settlement also establishes a new model for college sports.

    Instead of the current structure (where top athletes are recruited to universities with monetary offers from NIL collectives), the post-House landscape will allow Division I universities to directly share media and licensing revenue with athletes, in the form of NIL sublicensing agreements. The currently pending settlement would establish a revenue sharing “cap,” which would be determined each year based on average revenues. The cap is expected to be $20.5 million per school during the 2025-26 academic year, allocated across all sports.

    Legal Implications

    College athletes stand to be affected by the House settlement in a variety of ways. It is critical that athletes and their agents understand the legal implications of contracts that athletes are signing with universities and NIL collectives.

    Current NIL Collective Agreements

    Since the issuance of a preliminary approval of the House case settlement in October of 2024, universities and their NIL collectives can largely be described as operating in two distinct buckets. The first bucket includes collectives that have announced they will be winding up operations at the end of June 2025, right before universities can begin directly sharing revenue with athletes under the settlement agreement. Universities in this class have asked donors to allocate their donations directly to the university athletic department, instead of a third-party NIL collective. NIL collectives supporting efforts at these universities have also offered athletes contracts which expire at the end of June, right when their revenue sharing deals will likely begin.

    Universities and NIL collectives in the second bucket have taken a different approach—one could argue a more conservative approach. This approach has seen collectives offering long-term deals to athletes, some of which expire years after the House settlement might be approved. Importantly, the long-term collective deals reviewed by our firm all appear to permit the following: (1) the collective may assign the agreement to the university entirely, should the House case be settled and (2) the collective may reduce the compensation owed to the athlete on a dollar-for-dollar basis with the amount paid to the athlete by the university under any future revenue sharing agreements.

    MOUs and Revenue Sharing Contracts

    Universities in both buckets described above have begun sending athletes (and in some cases, signing) a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which outlines the essential terms of the athlete’s ultimate revenue sharing contract with the university. Based on MOUs which have been reviewed by our firm, the MOUs provided by universities are all: (1) conditioned on the ultimate settlement of the House case and (2) subject to future “Long-Form” agreements that will be entered into by the athlete and university (i.e., revenue sharing contracts). In other words, the universities are attempting to bind the athletes to their commitments, while simultaneously giving themselves opportunities for an out if the House settlement is not approved or is significantly altered.

    Notably, these revenue sharing agreements are likely to be the primary vehicle for compensation directed to athletes under the forthcoming model. While it remains a point of uncertainty (perhaps the biggest one left to be decided) of how and if NIL collectives have any place in the revenue sharing era of college sports, athletes should expect that university revenue sharing agreements will be their primary income source. Based on the MOUs reviewed by our firm, athletes should consider how the following terms may impact them:

    • Is the compensation amount unilaterally determined by the university? Can it amend the compensation owed at any time?
    • What would happen if the athlete were to transfer or be removed from the team? Are there any liquidated damages owed?
    • When and/or why may the university terminate the agreement?
    • Are any rights or claims waived by the athlete by entering into the agreement?
    • How might this impact any collective contract already in place?

    What Happens to Revenue Sharing if the Settlement is not Approved?

    Athletes must consider the possibility that the House settlement is not ultimately approved. While it appears likely that the settlement will be approved, it is not guaranteed. Notably, if the settlement is not approved, MOUs and revenue sharing contracts preliminarily entered into by athletes and universities may be void and/or unenforceable. Depending on the specific terms and conditions, the contract may be conditioned entirely on the settlement being approved.

    For athletes at universities operating in the first category (described above, in Current NIL Collective Agreements), athletes might find themselves in a precarious scenario. Depending on the timing, athletes may be left without an operating collective contract and no transfer portal opportunity to find a new institution. This is certainly speculative, but not beyond belief.

    Likewise, athletes at universities operating in the second category should consider how the settlement not being approved may affect them as well. Long-term contracts offered to our clients by NIL collectives have included language that the collective may, if the settlement is not approved, renegotiate and then reduce compensation unilaterally. Provisions such as these create significant risk to the athlete and should be considered very cautiously.

    Key Takeaways

    Regardless of whether the House case settlement is approved or not, collegiate athletes must be cognizant of the contractual implications of the agreements they have signed. In particular, athletes must consider:

    • How might an athlete’s collective contract be affected by the settlement? Would the settlement cause it to be void, assignable to the university, or reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis with any other agreements (such as an MOU or revenue sharing agreement) they sign?
    • What long-term (i.e., past June 2025) obligations does the athlete have? How might that change if the settlement is or is not approved?
    • Who has promised the athlete compensation? Is it conditioned by or affected by the House settlement?

    All athletes (and their agents) that are reviewing a university-issued MOU, revenue sharing agreement, or NIL collective agreement should consider working with experienced counsel to determine how their rights and obligations may be impacted by the contract.

  • Representing Athletes: The Legal Implications for NIL Agents

    Since July 1, 2021, high school and college athletes have signed thousands of name, image, and likeness (NIL) endorsement deals. NIL deals have been signed with local companies like car dealerships and national brands like Pepsi and Dr. Pepper. Additionally, college athletes have signed contracts with NIL collectives (booster groups that support NIL efforts at a particular institution). As the NIL industry has progressed, more and more college athletes have hired NIL agents to source and negotiate NIL deals for them.

    Sports agents that typically negotiate professional playing contracts and marketing agencies that represent influencers, celebrities, and media personalities alike have sought to represent college athletes. Moreover, there has been an influx of new “NIL agents” looking to work in the industry. Although most NIL agents are hardly what is portrayed in Jerry Maguire—most do not represent professional athletes in negotiating playing contracts—they are considered sports agents by most state laws and thus have legal responsibilities to consider. Additionally, as professional service providers, there are dozens of contract implications that NIL agents should be conscious of. Here are some of the primary legal concerns that NIL agents should consider prior to working with high school and college athletes:

    Registration as an Athlete Agent and State Athlete Agent Laws

    A major oversight for many NIL agents has been the failure to register with state agencies as an athlete agent. Although some state athlete agent laws have differing language and not all directly follow the Uniform Athlete Agent Act (UAAA), most state laws consider individuals who negotiate endorsement contracts on behalf of athletes to be sports agents. If the state you are representing athletes in considers you to be an athlete agent and requires athlete agents to register with the state, you must do so.

    NIL agents that fail to register with the states they are operating in can be subject to fines and personal liability. It is also important for NIL agents to be aware of multi-state registration requirements. Registering with one state may not be adequate if you are servicing clients in multiple states. It is likely that most NIL agents will have to register as an athlete agent in many states. Although NIL agents do not need to register with or be certified by a union, like the NFLPA, state registration is going to be required in almost all circumstances.

    NIL agents also should consider other requirements of state athlete agent laws and the federal Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA) beyond registration. Most of these laws place limitations on athlete agents, requirements for dealing with client funds, and disclosures that must be made to student-athletes and their universities. NIL agents must examine the requirements of each state law where they are working with student-athletes to be sure to comply with any of these provisions.

    State NIL Laws; NCAA, Institutional, and Conference NIL Policies

    When representing high school and college athletes in NIL deals, agents should ensure that each deal is in compliance with state NIL laws and any applicable NCAA, state HSAA, institutional, and conference rules or policies. While many state NIL laws have overlapping provisions, NIL agents should be aware of where their requirements may differ. For example, some state NIL laws require that NIL deals be reported to the athletic department, while others do not. Additionally, even within the same state, there are athletic departments that require reporting, while others do not.

    Moreover, NIL agents should closely follow the legislative landscape, as it has been dynamic and ever-changing. Many states have updated or repealed their NIL laws, while the NCAA has released new guidance on multiple occasions. Importantly, NIL agents must check every deal for compliance, primarily due to the differences in state laws and institutional policies.

    NIL Contract Risks Agents Must Manage

    A written contract should be utilized for all NIL deals. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Many athletes sign NIL deals without the help of an agent or attorney and many companies looking to work with athletes are unrepresented as well. These instances usually result in a “handshake deal” with no written contract at all or a contract that is poorly worded, inoperative, or unfavorable to the athlete. Agents representing college athletes for NIL deals should ensure that their clients are signing well-written and effective contracts, with favorable terms.

    In addition to negotiating the up-front dollars and cents of the deal, NIL agents should help protect their clients’ long-term financial and intellectual property interests through effective contract clauses. Long-term ownership or licensing rights of an athlete’s intellectual property should be carefully considered before agreeing to any NIL deal. Moreover, NIL agents should consider how exclusivity clauses, renewal clauses, and termination clauses may impact the deal. Providing clients with flexibility and security should be paramount.

    NIL Agent Representation Agreements

    In addition to protecting client interests, NIL agents should work to protect their own interests as well. This does not mean taking advantage of student-athletes. Otherwise, it means that NIL agents should make sure that they reap the benefits of the work they performed for their clients—not other agents. The athlete representation business has always been extremely competitive, with agents always looking to “poach” competitors’ clients. For commission-based representation, this can be extremely problematic. NIL agents can help protect their interests by signing effective representation agreements with their clients. These agreements should outline the rights and responsibilities of the agent and client, including payment provisions, the contract term, termination provisions, and exclusivity provisions.

    Agency Laws

    In addition to the laws that regulate athlete agents, NIL agents are also subject to state agency laws. Agency law is a state common law doctrine that outlines the responsibilities and authority of agents who are working on behalf of clients. NIL agents should be aware of how agency law (in addition to their representation agreements) may impact their ability to negotiate and enter into binding agreements for their clients. Additionally, NIL agents should be aware that they can be held liable in civil cases for certain actions taken during their representation. Understanding agency laws and fiduciary obligations can help to protect NIL agents from inappropriately acting on behalf of their clients.

    Best Practices and Key Takeaways

    Under most state athlete agent laws, NIL agents must become registered. Likewise, NIL agents are covered within the scope of SPARTA, the federal athlete agent law. Agents must comply with its provisions as well. Consider how each state athlete agent law may govern and affect your relationship with the collegiate athletes you represent. Failure to comply with the registration requirements and agency contract form requirements can result in a representation agreement being void. NIL agents should consider working with experienced legal counsel to navigate athlete agent laws and the dynamic NIL landscape.

Privacy Policy Privacy Policy