The 2021 Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston, combined with state-level legislative action and the MHSAA's extension of NIL rights to high school athletes, dismantled decades of amateurism doctrine. This brief examines the legal, labor-economic, and equity dimensions of NIL policy in Michigan with particular attention to high school athletes now entering the landscape. It offers a framework for ensuring that the expansion of NIL rights produces genuine economic opportunity rather than concentrated benefit for already-advantaged athletes.
Scholarly Context
Labor economics frames NIL as a partial correction of a monopsony labor market - one in which a single buyer (the NCAA) historically suppressed wages by prohibiting athlete compensation beyond scholarship value. [1] The Supreme Court's 2021 ruling in NCAA v. Alston (594 U.S. 69) established that the NCAA's restrictions on education-related benefits violated antitrust law under the Sherman Act, providing the legal foundation for subsequent NIL legislative action at the state level. [2] Legal scholars have noted, however, that Alston left the broader structure of athletic labor markets largely intact, and that NIL rights represent a limited rather than comprehensive market correction. [3]
Title IX scholarship raises particular concerns about gender equity in the NIL landscape. Research by Wharton School economists documents that men's revenue sports - primarily football and basketball - attract exponentially greater NIL funding and brand partnership opportunities than women's sports, risking a new vector of gender-based economic inequality within athletic programs. [4] Studies of early NIL market activity confirm this disparity: male athletes in revenue sports earn substantially higher average NIL valuations than female athletes across all sports categories. [5]
Antitrust law scholarship cautions that NIL collectives - nonprofit entities formed by boosters to pool and distribute NIL payments - may functionally constitute pay-for-play arrangements that circumvent the residual amateurism framework. [6] For high school athletes, the equity risks are compounded. These are minors - often without independent legal counsel, financial literacy, or experienced parental guidance - being invited into contract relationships with commercial entities. [7] Research on financial literacy among adolescent athletes consistently shows low baseline understanding of contract terms, tax implications, and long-term reputational risk. [8]
Michigan Legislative Intersection
Michigan has been an active NIL jurisdiction. House Bill 5217 (2020) positioned the state as an early mover in collegiate NIL legalization. [9] House Bill 4643 (2025) has refined the framework for both collegiate and high school athletes. Most significantly, the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) extended NIL opportunities to high school athletes, establishing the "Personal Branding Activity" (PBA) framework - making Michigan one of the first states to formally extend these rights below the collegiate level. [10]
The absence of a statewide educational mandate accompanying these legislative changes means that thousands of newly rights-eligible high school athletes are entering commercial markets with no standardized preparation. [11] Michigan legal firm Varnum LLP has noted the compliance complexity facing districts under the new PBA framework, underscoring the need for district-level tools that NCI's MSEEM initiative is designed to provide. [12]
Implementation Pathway
NIL Financial Literacy Curriculum
In partnership with the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Council on Economic Education, develop a standardized NIL Financial Literacy Toolkit for both collegiate and high school athletes, covering contract basics, tax implications, collective structures, and reputational risk.
Institutional Mandate
Require Michigan universities and the MHSAA to integrate NIL education into athletic onboarding, ensuring every athlete receives foundational instruction before engaging with any commercial NIL opportunity.
Contract Review Resource
Establish a low-cost or subsidized contract review program - modeled on legal aid clinic structures - to provide athletes without family legal resources access to qualified review before signing NIL agreements.
Collective Transparency Standards
Mandate that NIL collectives operating in Michigan register with a state authority, disclose fee structures, and publish annual impact reports disaggregated by sport, gender, and athlete socioeconomic status.
View references
References [1] Kahn, L. M. (2000). The sports business as a labor market laboratory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (3), 75 - 94. [2] NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021). [3] McCann, M. (2021). What NCAA v. Alston means - and doesn't mean - for college athletes. Sports Illustrated Law . [4] Futterman, M., & Kirwan, M. (2021). Female athletes in NIL: The gender equity problem. Wall Street Journal. [5] Opendorse. (2022). NIL by the numbers: The state of name, image, and likeness in college athletics. Opendorse Inc. [6] Edelman, M. (2021). A short treatise on NIL collectives and the NCAA's amateurism framework. Forbes. [7] Lumpkin, A., & Favor, J. (2012). Comparing the academic performance of high school athletes. Journal of Sport Administration & Supervision, 4 (1). [8] Mandell, L., & Klein, L. S. (2009). The impact of financial literacy education on subsequent financial behavior. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 20 (1), 15 - 24. [9] Michigan Legislature. (2020). House Bill No. 5217. Michigan Legislature. [10] Michigan High School Athletic Association. (2025). MHSAA policy on personal branding activity and NIL rights. MHSAA. [11] Northstar Civic Institute. (2026). MSEEM audit: NIL accessibility findings. NCI Research Series. [12] Varnum LLP. (2026, January). Michigan extends NIL opportunities to high school student-athletes. Varnum Law.