NIL drives college sports into legal entropy

 The Supreme Court unanimously decided that players are entitled to earn compensation from their name, image and likeness (NIL) in 2021. Since then, mentioning NIL invokes metaphors of floodgates opening and pendulums swinging the other way now that players can finally be compensated. Today, these adages are still true. Rule changes and the prospect of truckloads of cash reflect the NCAA's reactive posture in a hyper-commercial, NIL-driven era. Each injects new ambiguity, potential litigation exposure and strategic complexity, adding fresh layers to the regulatory chaos that continually defines college sports. 

Let's look at some of the most recent developments, how they can affect players and how lawyers can keep them making sound, off-the-field decisions.  

Betting by student-athletes and staff

In October 2025, the NCAA Division I Administrative Committee approved a proposal to allow student-athletes and athletic department staff to bet on professional sports, but not on college sports or games in which they are involved. 

The change must still be ratified by Divisions II and III. Importantly, existing prohibitions remain in force: 

 No betting on college sports. 

 No sharing insider information.

 No sponsorships or advertisements tied to gambling in NCAA championship settings. 

Anyone with a sense of irony might channel their inner Jerry Seinfeld and remark: "Good luck with all that."  

This rule shift is hardly a benign liberalization. Legally, it blurs lines of integrity and compliance. The NCAA has already faced significant enforcement actions, most recently in September, when three basketball players, Mykell Robinson, Steven Vasquez and Jalen Weaver, were banned for betting on their own games. They escaped relatively lightly compared to others ensnared in other betting scandals. This ordeal evokes the points-shaving scheme in the late 1970s, when Boston College player Rick Kuhn conspired with mob associates Henry Hill, portrayed by Ray Liotta in "GoodFellas," and other nefarious personalities to fix basketball games. The scheme aimed to profit from Las Vegas bets but unraveled after Hill's confession. Kuhn was convicted of racketeering, exposing gambling's reach into college sports. 

This new policy would raise multiple legal risks surrounding due process in sanctions, predictive monitoring such as detecting suspicious wagers and overlaps with state gambling laws. Allowing "insiders" to bet on professional events but banning other forms could also prompt fairness and equal protection challenges.

In the turbulent NIL era, where athletes already face shifting rules and blurred commercial lines, this change introduces new enforcement complexity. Compliance offices now must police gambling, education modules must expand and institutions must manage reputational risk. The rule invites ongoing ambiguity: For example, how will borderline bets be treated? What monitoring burden will rest on schools? Will states' gambling regulators challenge NCAA authority? Sports lawyers will play a crucial role in helping players and programs stay within the lines.

Commercial logos on uniforms

On Oct. 8, 2025, NCAA's Division I Administrative Committee also introduced a proposal to permit additional commercial logos beyond the equipment manufacturer mark on uniforms, apparel and equipment in non-NCAA championship competition. Under the current rule, only the manufacturer's logo is allowed during games. If adopted (targeted for a vote in January 2026, with changes effective Aug. 1), schools could carry two additional logos on uniforms and pregame/postgame attire, and one on athletic equipment. 

This shift carries significant legal and commercial implications: 

1. It further commercializes the student-athlete body and brings college sports closer to professional leagues' branding models.

2. Conflicts may arise under existing apparel exclusive contracts: Many schools are contractually bound to only display their apparel provider's marks, which may prohibit third-party logo patches. 

3. It may strain NCAA oversight as the College Sports Commission (CSC), or its equivalent, may need to adjudicate whether logos constitute part of NIL compensation (if tied to an athlete deal), possibly implicating the "associated entity" doctrine in NIL regimes. The uncertainty over classification, whether such a sponsor is independent or associated, makes compliance riskier. 

Until clarity is provided on placement, valuation methodology and limits, uniform logo commerce injects further unpredictability into already contested and murky regulatory terrain.

New transfer windows for football (FBS/FCS)

In October 2025, the NCAA officially adopted a single offseason transfer portal window for Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Bowl Subdivision (FCS) football, from Jan. 2-16, eliminating the prior spring window. Additionally, the window for entering after a head coaching change will now open five calendar days after the new coach is announced and last 15 days, down from 30. Players whose teams participate late in postseason play -- for example, CFP semifinalists -- will have a separate five-day post-season portal window. 

Legally, these changes raise antitrust and due process tensions. Restricting mobility through a narrow window may constitute unjustifiable limitations on athletes' freedom to contract or transfer, especially if less restrictive alternatives exist. In fact, observers have already predicted antitrust challenges, noting that such timing constraints may inhibit competition for athletes among programs. 

In practice, this change compresses the legal, logistical and NIL negotiation timeline. Athletes, agents, collectives and schools now must make decisive deals in a much narrower window. It exacerbates pressure during ongoing postseason and coaching turnover periods, making permissible NIL offers, roster changes and contract structuring more litigation risky and volatile. The "once-a-year" portal amplifies the risk of litigation and exacerbates inequalities across programs.

 College football and financial fouls

As if matters weren't complicated enough, there are indications that colleges are strapped for cash. A University of North Carolina spokesperson confirmed to The Fayetteville Observer on Oct. 16, 2025 that Tar Heels' Football General Manager Michael Lombardi took an exploratory fundraising trip to Saudi Arabia. 

This news had key college sports stakeholders up in arms, including billionaire businessman and Texas Tech Board of Regents Chair Cody Campbell, whose name was floated to lead a presidential commission on college sports. Campbell reacted to the news on X:

"College Sports have a major financial crisis that no one wants to acknowledge. Commissioners must admit that we have a problem and work to find solutions. There are straightforward and proven ways to significantly increase revenue and make sure we preserve this great American Institution. Selling it off in pieces to Private Equity and Foreign entities is NOT the answer."

Saudi investment in U.S. sports is hardly unprecedented. Since 2021, the Saudi Public Investment Fund has financed the LIV Golf Invitational Series. There has been wide criticism amid allegations of corruption and human rights abuses. Were Lombardi to secure a deal, branding such as Saudi Aramco's logo could feasibly appear on Tar Heels uniforms, luring recruits while alienating others wary of foreign influence. It could also open the door for collaborations with nations hostile to U.S. interests and place players in the middle of a geopolitical skirmish.

On controlling the chaos in 2026

This year offered unique opportunities for athletes to collaborate with sports lawyers to redefine entrepreneurship and transfer portal use. Progress has been made but unpredictability still reigns.

As betting rules loosen and foreign financing expands, athletes face escalating risks that could lead to expulsion or even criminal exposure. Though federal legislation that could protect players and college athletics gained some traction, it has stalled again in Congress, making its passage uncertain. Against this backdrop, sports lawyers are not just advocates; they are essential navigators, offering athletes the clear, unvarnished counsel they need, not merely the guidance they want.