In February, McNeese State’s basketball manager, Amir
“Aura” Khan, rose to fame when a video featuring him went
viral on X/Twitter. In the video, Khan led players out of the
locker room with a boombox on his shoulder while rapping along to
“In and Out” by Lud Foe. The video garnered millions of
views and earned Khan name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals with
TickPick, Insomnia Cookies, and others in excess of $100,000.
Khan’s moment is emblematic of the new age for college sports,
where brands seek to engage with prized demographics and
student-athletes have new opportunities to benefit from the use of
their NIL.

The NCAA’s 2021 decision to permit student-athletes to earn
compensation from the use of their NIL fundamentally altered the
landscape of college athletics. Student-athletes (and even aspiring
student managers) are now permitted to profit from their personal
brand, creating new opportunities, and considerations, within the
realm of sports representation at the collegiate level. As college
athletes sign endorsement deals at increasingly younger ages, the
legal and regulatory issues surrounding NIL and the representation
of student-athletes are becoming more complex.

NIL Evolution

In June 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in
Alston v. NCAA.¹ In a unanimous ruling, the Court
upheld a lower court’s finding that the NCAA’s restrictions
on education-related benefits for athletes were anticompetitive.
While the Alston decision did not directly address NIL, it
reinforced antitrust scrutiny of NCAA compensation limits and
catalyzed the NCAA’s decision to revise its NIL rules in July
2021.

The Alston case, while related, is distinct from
House v. NCAA, a class action lawsuit challenging the
NCAA’s long-standing restrictions on athlete compensation. In
June 2025, a final approval of the settlement was granted,
permitting schools to share up to $20.5 million in revenue directly
with student-athletes.² The settlement also introduces
several compliance measures. For example, in order to assess the
fair market value and legitimacy of third-party NIL agreements,
Division I athletes will be required to report deals exceeding $600
to an independent clearinghouse. The settlement reflects a seismic
shift toward a more centralized, regulated, and revenue-sharing
model in college athletics. Some analysts warn that this new
oversight mechanism – especially regarding what qualifies as
a valid NIL deal – could reduce the value of certain NIL
arrangements, particularly those that resemble “pay to
play” incentives rather than conventional brand endorsement
deals.

On July 1, 2021, the NCAA implemented a policy allowing
student-athletes to monetarily benefit from their NIL, even in
states that have not enacted NIL legislation, and to use
professional services providers, such as agents, for NIL
activities.³ For decades prior, NCAA athletes
were prohibited from receiving any form of financial compensation
beyond potential athletic scholarships. Now, agencies play a
critical role in managing athletes’ personal brands –
often before they step foot on a college campus.

The increasing scale of the NIL marketplace is evident in the
projected earnings of top athletes over a 12-month period. On3, a
media outlet focused on college sports, recently estimated that
Arch Manning (projected top NFL draft pick) has an NIL valuation of
$6.8 million, with Carson Beck (projected number 7 NFL draft pick)
at $4.3 million and The Ohio State University wide receiver
Jeremiah Smith at $4.2 million.⁴

A New Class of Agents

Historically, athlete representation has primarily focused on
professional athletes, with agents becoming involved only after an
athlete turned pro. However, with college athletes now legally
permitted to monetize their personal brand and NIL earlier in their
careers, a growing number of new agencies are entering the NIL
space, seeking to represent college and even high school athletes.
Further, many traditional agencies are exploring NIL
opportunities.

This shift has created new challenges for athletes, schools, and
advisors navigating the evolving regulatory landscape. It has also
introduced a distinct category of representation—NIL
agents—whose roles and obligations differ in key ways from
those of traditional sports agents:

• Scope of Representation: Traditional agents
  primarily negotiate playing contracts with professional teams. NIL
  agents, by contrast, focus on endorsement deals, branding, social
  media strategy, and content monetization.
• Compensation Structure: Both types of agents
  typically earn a commission, but traditional agents usually receive
  3–5% of team contract values, while NIL agents may charge
  10–20% of earnings from brand partnerships and content
  deals.
• Regulatory Oversight: Traditional agents must
  be licensed by the professional leagues in which their clients play
  and must comply with applicable CBAs. NIL agents operate under an
  evolving mix of state laws, institutional policies, and NCAA
  guidelines, with no unified national licensing system currently in
  place.
• Timing of Engagement: Traditional agents
  generally work with athletes entering or already in the
  professional ranks. NIL agents engage with athletes in the
  beginning of, or sometimes before, their collegiate playing careers
  begin.

The Issues of Timing and Informed Consent

The representation of pre-collegiate and collegiate athletes
implicates important legal considerations regarding informed
consent and contract enforceability. In California, for example, a
contract with a minor is voidable by the minor until they reach
adulthood, but the obligations of any adult party to that contract
remain enforceable. While California courts have the power to
affirm certain types of contracts (in which case, the contract
cannot be voided on the grounds that a party was a minor when the
contract was signed), NIL representation agreements do not
necessarily fit into the categories of contracts that such courts
have the power to affirm. NIL agents operating in California and
states with similar laws should be mindful that, absent court
approval or specific statutory protection, contracts with minor
athletes may be voided—potentially after significant
performance has already occurred—leaving the adult party
bound while the minor walks away.

In addition, with many athletes still in their teenage years
when they sign NIL deals, questions may arise about whether they
fully understand the terms and long-term implications of their
agreements. One relevant case involves Chicago Bears defensive
lineman Gervon Dexter, who filed a federal lawsuit seeking to void
his agreement with a NIL group on the basis that it was
predatory.⁵ According to reports, under the
agreement, signed in 2022 while Dexter was a student, Dexter agreed
to pay the agency 15% of his pre-tax NFL earnings for
25 years in exchange for a one-time payment of $436,485. For
context, the current average NFL salary is approximately $3.2
million per season. Though the case is still pending, Florida
lawmakers have expressed support for Dexter’s position and
argue that his NIL deal does not comply with Florida’s NIL
laws.

To date, over 30 states have enacted NIL laws, while others have
introduced NIL-related legislation. No two states’ laws are the
same – they vary regarding the protections in place for
athletes, when athletes can and cannot promote their NIL, agency
licensing requirements, disclosure obligations, who can compensate
athletes, how compensation can be structured, and other aspects. A
federal framework could potentially provide more consistency across
jurisdictions. The U.S. House of Representatives has recently
introduced the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights
and Endorsements (“SCORE”) Act, a bipartisan bill that
seeks to standardize NIL protections nationwide, regulate agents
representing student athletes, and prevent universities from
revoking scholarships due to injury or poor performance. In
addition, press reports indicate that the President is considering
issuing an executive order directing the National Labor Relations
Board to clarify whether college athletes qualify as school
employees. While proponents of a national legislative framework
believe these efforts will provide a more sustainable future for
college sports, others express concern that federal interaction
would centralize control in the NCAA and limit athlete’s
rights.

Other Legal Challenges for NIL Deals and the NCAA’s
Role

As NIL deals proliferate, legal disputes may become more
frequent – particularly where the terms of the deal are
unclear or athletes are not well-versed in contract law. Agents
face heightened exposure in this environment, especially when
representing multiple athletes in the same sport or position, or
when they maintain business relationships with brands seeking deals
with their clients. These scenarios raise serious conflict of
interest concerns that may implicate both legal ethics and state
NIL compliance requirements.

Perhaps the most significant legal challenge, however, remains
the NCAA’s evolving and inconsistent approach to the regulation
of NIL. While the NCAA now permits athletes to profit from their
NIL, it has yet to adopt a uniform and comprehensive set of
policies. This regulatory vacuum has created a fragmented system as
schools and states implement varying rules to fill the gap,
complicating matters for both athletes and their agencies.

The Future of NIL

As the NIL market continues to grow, legal and regulatory
frameworks will likely continue to evolve. Industry observers
anticipate ongoing discussions regarding standardization of NIL
deals and potential movement toward more uniform regulations across
states and schools. At the same time, the role of agencies
continues to grow as more student-athletes seek professional
representation. Legal practitioners can contribute to this
developing area by providing guidance on clear contractual
agreements, compliance considerations and relevant legal
protections.

5 Key Takeaways for Student-Athletes

1. Understand your rights and obligations under any NIL
   contract.
2. Work with trusted and experienced advisors who have your best
   interests in mind.
3. Consider the long-term implications of any NIL deal in addition
   to the short-term effects.
4. Do not feel pressured to sign the first deal presented to
   you.
5. Stay educated on the evolving legal landscape.

5 Key Takeaways for Agencies

1. Understand the current state and federal legal landscape.
2. Prepare for further regulation and changes to the legal
   landscape.
3. Ensure clear and transparent NIL contracts.
4. Consider conflicts of interest caused by other clients and
   business relationships.
5. Develop partnerships that align with athletes’ personal
   values to maximize long term success.

Special thanks to former intern, Gregory Dauber for his
contributions to this article.

Footnotes

1. National Collegiate Athletic Association v.
Alston et al., No. 20-512, slip op. (U.S. March 31,
2021).

2. Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving
way for US colleges to pay athletes millions | AP
News

3. NCAA adopts interim name, image and likeness
policy | NCAA.com

4. On3 NIL Valuations

5. Florida legislator says Bears DT Gervon
Dexter’s NIL deal violated law – ESPN