When NIL Meets Injury
OPENING STATEMENTS
UCF’s starting quarterback is uncertain for this week’s game. Iowa’s dealing with a few injuries on offense. So is Kansas State. If the start of college football season delivers pent-up excitement, it also brings injuries. For college athletes – whether in football, soccer, field hockey or any other sport – injuries are inevitable.
While the impact has always gone beyond the field, it has never been greater than it is today. The new landscape – from compensation via the House vs. NCAA settlement to ballooning NIL opportunities – has created more issues. NIL contracts don’t stop just because a knee buckles or a shoulder pops. And while NCAA rules prohibit canceling a deal solely because of injury, the contracts themselves are getting trickier. The risks are real, and many players are only now realizing how much fine print can decide whether their name, image, and likeness still pay when they can’t play.
I’ve already been dealing with a number of such issues. Here’s what we’re seeing and hearing as NIL agreements proliferate.
Vague language is dangerous. A contract can’t say “you lose your deal if you’re hurt,” but it can say payments may stop if your “marketability is impaired.” That’s a softer way of tying compensation to health. And yes, an injury can easily be read as an impairment.
Performance and morality clauses are creeping in. If a contract allows termination when performance slips, what happens after a long recovery? The rule may not target injury directly, but the effect is the same: less leverage for an athlete.
Off-campus injuries are an escape hatch. Some agreements attempt to cut or reclaim money if an injury occurs in a non-team activity. Pickup basketball, rec-league softball, even a car accident could give a company grounds to walk away.
The hidden cost is pressure. Players know their NIL income depends on visibility and momentum. That reality can make them hide injuries or play hurt, risking long-term damage to protect short-term money. It can also be used against athletes, with trainers and coaches using that perceived leverage to keep them on the field.
There are some guardrails. NCAA rules still prohibit injury-specific penalties. The NCAA began funding a two-year, post-eligibility insurance policy covering up to $90,000 in medical expenses. And in practice, some brands know better than to pull support. A company walking away from an injured star risks looking ruthless, with the PR fallout likely outweighing the financial hit.
But those protections only go so far. Unlike the pros, there’s no standardized system in college sports for handling NIL disputes tied to injury. Every contract is its own battlefield. And that means leverage depends on two things: the athlete’s personal brand and the quality of the legal advice they get before signing.
The bottom line: NIL contracts are no longer just easy endorsement forms. They’re closer to employment agreements, with all the complexity and traps that come with them. Every word in the contract matters. For players, this season won’t just test their bodies. It will test the strength of the deals they signed.
As we continue to receive inquiries, here are some key takeaways that I share with student athletes and their families:
Know exactly what you’re agreeing to. Read and understand every clause.
Bring in trusted advisors, especially legal counsel, before you sign.
Think long term: what looks good now may create problems later.
Don’t rush. Waiting for the right deal can protect both your health and your earnings.
Stay informed. The NIL landscape is changing fast, and your rights will evolve with it.
EXHIBIT A
Last week in this space, we mentioned Utah coach Kyle Whittingham’s skepticism at the current landscape. This week, it’s UCLA basketball coach Mick Cronin, who referred to NIL as “a noble attempt to put everybody on a level playing field, but I just don’t see in our country where it’s constitutionally legal to limit wages and tell people what their value is. I don’t see how it holds up in court.” Cronin suggested that coaches need to proceed with two plans, one in which the House settlement holds up, the other in which it doesn’t - leading to an NIL-driven, unrestricted free agency bonanza for the spring portal and recruiting period.
EXHIBIT B
The NCAA Football Oversight Committee voted yesterday to support a single transfer portal in January. While this may appear to streamline the process, it raises concerns about athlete freedom and mobility, narrowing the window for student-athletes to explore their options and potentially limiting opportunities for those needing to transfer outside that period.
Such a restriction could be seen as anti-competitive, opening the door to challenges under antitrust law. The policy walks a fine line between governance and overreach – a line courts have shown they are willing to scrutinize when it comes to protecting athlete rights.
The committee also said it supports making December a dead period and changing the date that a high school senior can receive a written offer from Aug. 1 (current) to Nov. 15.
ON THE DOCKET
While the latest class-action lawsuit, Patterson v. NCAA, primarily challenges the NCAA’s redshirt rule – alleging that its restrictions on playing time during an athlete’s five-year eligibility period violate U.S. antitrust laws – I believe the suit’s most compelling aspect is its lost damages claim. The plaintiffs seek compensation for lost institutional NIL, third-party NIL, and scholarship funds that would have gone to athletes who enrolled between fall 2020 and spring 2022, did not redshirt, and have exhausted their eligibility. The complaint also targets the House settlement, arguing that the $20.5 million cap on school payments to athletes is unlawful. If successful, class members could receive payouts far exceeding this cap. This case isn’t just about athletes trying to claw back lost money or squeeze out another year of eligibility. It could unravel key parts of the House deal and force a rethinking of how schools and the NCAA structure athlete compensation.
FOOTNOTES
We’re seeing two very different storylines emerge from this week’s NIL numbers. The College Sports Commission reported that more than 95% of deals it reviewed received approval, while NIL collectives report that more than $11 million worth of agreements remain stuck in limbo.
