A subcommittee of the Senate Education Commission that was considering a Name, Image and Similarity bill gave its preliminary approval to be forwarded to the Education Commission. Although the bill is still in its early stages, if approved, it will give university student-athletes the opportunity to engage in profitable NIL businesses through third parties.
Six states have already passed laws that are at least somewhat similar to what is currently going through the legislative process in South Carolina. Passing bill No. 685 would place schools in South Carolina on a level playing field with states that have already adopted the NIL legislation and the dozens more who are planning to do so in the near future.
“I think it is the right thing for all student-athletes across the country to be able to engage in name, image and resemblance,” South Carolina athletics director Ray Tanner said TheBigSpur.com.
“I am very grateful to our Education Subcommittee for taking care of this on behalf of our girls and boys who play college sports in the state of South Carolina. We are at the forefront of name, image and likeness, and we are a state that will be balanced and ready to go, if Congress or the NCAA does not act first. “
Research director Donna Barton explained exactly what the bill currently involves, which can be read in its entirety below.
The main points, however, are that current student-athletes would be able to benefit from NIL compensation if it represents a genuine payment for their name, image and likeness and not a trade-off for athletic performance or as an incentive for recruitment. Student-athletes could also receive compensation for non-athletic work, such as monetizing a YouTube channel, which any other non-intercollegiate student-athlete could earn.
Institutions would be prohibited from facilitating NIL opportunities as a means of recruiting or paying for athletic participation.
Giving student-athletes the opportunity during their university careers to profit from their name, image and likeness would also be a great learning tool for the future. There would be an educational component that student-athletes would require, which South Carolina has already done in its partnership with Altius Sports Partners.
“This is great for our student-athletes. While they are young, they have the opportunity to look to the future and gain that experience by entering the real world, ”said Tanner. “We all know that very few of our student-athletes will be professionals in the sport they practice, so now they have a chance to get into the real world aspect of what this name, image and likeness can really do for them and get that experience. “
Athletics director Tanner and Clemson Dan Radakovich also spoke on Wednesday in front of the Senate Subcommittee and provided a unified position on the issue, which will be heard afterwards by the entire Senate Education Committee.
“Obviously, it is an extremely important bill for student athletes in the state of South Carolina,” said Radakovich. “All of our institutions are grateful to the Education Subcommittee for addressing this very important issue. We think that, as national legislation seems to have stagnated, we want to make sure that we create opportunities for our student-athletes to engage in opportunities of name, image and likeness in the very near future. “
Radakovich says that having a NIL law in place in South Carolina “would guarantee that we would have the ability to be on the same ground as some of the other states”. The bill currently provides for the law to enter into force on July 1, 2022.
And he was happy to work with Tanner to support the legislation.
“Ray and I have known each other for more than 20 years and I have great respect for him, not just as a coach, but as an athletics director,” said Radakovich. “We have great respect for South Carolina in terms of how they treat their student-athletes, how they educate them and how they compete. This is just a natural extension of the kind of cooperation that we have between the two institutions and the friendship that we have. “
As an athletics department, South Carolina is already taking steps to have its student-athletes well prepared for the additional benefits to come, whether through state legislation, NCAA amendments or legislation through Congress.
“Our student-athletes are delighted to be engaged at the administrative level,” said Tanner. “Our coaches are prepared and very supportive of the opportunity that student-athletes have not had in the past. Just a few years ago, the cost of care came into play. Now, the name, the image and the similarity are in the foreground and our student-athletes will be in a position to benefit, as they should ”.
Research director Donna Barton explains the current draft of the NIL bill
“This bill would allow intercollegiate athletes to engage in name, image or likeness contracts with third parties to obtain athlete agents, provide appropriate definitions, required disclosures and restrictions.
Just some information about the NIL – the NCAA Board of Governors, in the summer of 2019, created a federal and state working group with the aim of investigating a possible response and proposing state and federal legislation. The report was delivered to the Board of Governors on April 30, 2020 for review. The report recommended a schedule for divisions to have approved all NIL proposals for divisions with effective dates no later than the beginning of the academic year 2021-22. However, the NCAA did not act in accordance with the report and it appears that it did so in an effort to get Congress to pass federal NIL legislation that would preclude state law and in an attempt to await the pending antitrust litigation currently with the United States Supreme Court. USA that was moved against the NCAA.
In this lull, six states have already adopted the NIL legislation with Florida legislation that will take effect in July 2021. California, Florida, Colorado, Nebraska, New Jersey and Michigan are the states that currently have an NIL clause in their laws. Currently, three other states have NIL legislation passed by one side of their General Assembly and awaiting a vote on the other. And another 18 have NIL legislation working through the committee process.
NIL compensation would be allowed if it represents a genuine payment for NIL and not an exchange for athletic performance or attendance at a particular institution, and provided only by a third party. Athletes would also be allowed to receive compensation for non-sporting work, product or activity related to a business they own – compensation that any other non-intercollegiate athlete could earn.
An institution is prohibited from facilitating NIL opportunities as a means of recruiting or paying for athletic participation. NIL activities cannot take place while participating in academic, athletic or team-required activities.
This clarifies that the grant awarded by an institution is not compensation under the NIL. An institution may prohibit NIL activities if they conflict with institutional sponsorship agreements or other contracts. It can also prohibit NIL activities that conflict with institutional values. NIL cannot be linked to endorsements of tobacco, illegal substances or activities, prohibited athletic substances or games of chance, including sports betting. (Alcohol was also added later as an amendment.) NIL cannot interfere with class loss and academic position policies.
NIL contracts must be disclosed to the institution, they must have certain notices of possible eligibility issues under the current rules of the university athletic conference or association and the contract must provide for a 10-day revocation period for the athlete. NIL contracts cannot extend previous athletic participation in the institution.