"Leveling the Field: Evaluating the Impact of the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act and Other Legislation on NCAA Governance and Athlete Rights in College Sports" by Justin Marraccini

Leveling the Field: Evaluating the Impact of the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act and Other Legislation on NCAA Governance and Athlete Rights in College Sports

Justin Marraccini, Elizabethtown College

Abstract

This article examines the legal implications, complications, and other relevant information on the Student Athlete Level Playing Act, other applicable legislation, and the name, image, and likeness (NIL) framework at large. This article also attempts to analyze the extent to which this legislation protects student athletes from exploitation, while simultaneously protecting the interests of the NCAA and its respective institutions. Using a focused comparison design, this paper features online sources, as well as two interviews with collegiate athletes who have had to face the legal difficulties of the NIL realm. Findings suggest the impact of legislation on the rights of collegiate athletes cannot be overstated. As of now, NIL is the Wild West; an unregulated area of sports law that needs to reach solutions to its issues relatively quickly. If this does not occur, the consequences could lead to athletes being vulnerable to agencies, companies, and other entities taking advantage of and exploiting their name, image, or likeness for corporate gain. As new pieces of legislation that regulate this landscape are being put out every day, collegiate baseball players are going to become more comfortable signing endorsements and earning a profit through NIL as they are better legally protected.

---

Introduction

In 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was created as a non-profit organization with the goal of providing regulation and oversight to collegiate athletic programs throughout the nation. In 1973, the NCAA, which then regulated programs across hundreds of colleges, decided to split these programs into the Division One, Division Two, and Division Three levels. The divisions were separated by school size and athletic resources in an attempt to create a fairer level of competition among schools. Schools that had received greater revenue, resources, and enrollments were no longer playing against schools that did not receive such benefits. 

In the 2024 fiscal year, the NCAA brought in over $1.4 billion in revenue across all collegiate sports, earning large amounts of this revenue through events such as the Men’s and Women’s Basketball Division One “March Madness” Tournament, Football Bowl Games, and other various sporting events (Berkowitz, 2025). With such a large profit yield, a debate arose on whether the players themselves should become eligible to receive compensation for performance on and off the field. Multiple players, programs, and others sued the NCAA, claiming that student-athletes had the right to earn money while competing in their sports. These lawsuits, combined with pressure from multiple state legislatures, caused the NCAA to establish an interim policy that supported student-athletes benefiting from their name, image, or likeness (NIL), which applied to incoming athletes, as well as current athletes in collegiate programs (Krupka, 2023). This interim policy created a completely new dimension to college sports. Big-time Division One athletes such as Arch Manning, quarterback for the University of Texas football team, Braden Smith, point guard on the Purdue University basketball team, and Jeremiah Smith, wide receiver for the Ohio State University football team, are now making millions of dollars because of their performance on the field and court (On3, 2024). 

However, this interim policy did not provide a uniform framework for the NIL process, resulting in the landscape for collegiate athletes becoming an unknown and unregulated territory, forcing these young adults to navigate a complex legal environment, which could leave them vulnerable if they are not careful. To mitigate these risks, multiple pieces of legislation, such as the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act, have been proposed in an attempt to create legal protections for these athletes when they enter deals to promote their brand. 

But do these pieces of legislation actually protect the interests of these athletes? If so, how does the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act, along with related NIL legislation, affect the governance of collegiate sports and the rights of student athletes? The utmost important responsibility of the government, the NCAA, institutional programs, colleges, universities, and all other governing bodies is to safeguard these collegiate athletes from being exploited by businesses and large brands and to promote fairness among all collegiate sports. The reality is that federal NIL legislation, while designed to create fairness, exposes gaps in NCAA governance and requires stronger oversight mechanisms to safeguard athletes’ rights. This article will feature the historical and legal background of NIL, one of the pioneer pieces of legislation for NIL: The Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act, other related NIL legislation such as the FAIR College Sports Act and the clearinghouse NIL Go, as well as the court case House v. NCAA, which established much of the slightly more regulated process of NIL, as well as generated NIL revenue to student-athletes, past and present, and finally, two interviews with ex-collegiate baseball players who had to learn how to navigate the NIL realm at the highest collegiate level in their sport.

Historical and Legal Background

In 1905, prior to the formation of the NCAA, a meeting led by New York University’s Chancellor Henry M. MacCracken, as urged by President Theodore Roosevelt, and collegiate athletics leaders from schools such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, convened to address the large number of injuries and deaths that arose from football. Out of this meeting came the creation of the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States, the first official collegiate governing body created in the U.S. This body was constituted on March 31, 1906, and was later renamed the National Collegiate Athletic Association in 1910. Since its formation in 1906, the NCAA has pledged its mission to ensure safety, fairness, and inclusion for all in collegiate sports. Topics such as Title IX, the federal law that prohibits any sex discrimination in education, academic requirements for athletics, and fiscal reforms are all handled by the NCAA to create uniform guidelines for all college athletics (NCAA, 2021). 

Most recently, the newest challenge that has presented itself to the NCAA and college sports is the NIL debate. Student-athletes, especially at large schools such as Penn State, Alabama, and Ohio State, draw in extremely large sources of revenue for the NCAA and their respective schools, causing these athletes to create a strong push to have the ability to profit off their work on the field or court. While this dispute itself is not a new concept, the developments as of late have caused the debate to take center stage. In 2008, Ed O’Bannon, a former All-American in basketball for the University of California, Los Angeles, was at a friend’s house where he learned about a video game called NCAA March Madness, a game in which players can play as college basketball teams against other college basketball teams. What was surprising was that O’Bannon saw an avatar of himself in the game. O’Bannon was never compensated, nor did he consent to having his name, image, or likeness used for this game. As a result, O’Bannon sued the NCAA and the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC), alleging that he and other players should have the right to be compensated if their name, image, or likeness is used, as it violated Section One of the Sherman Act. In the case of O’Bannon v. NCAA (2015), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that member schools could now grant scholarships for up to the full cost of attendance (Mcleod, n.d.). While this did not directly give student-athletes the right to earn direct compensation on their NIL, this case was the first step that would eventually lead to this reality. 

Eventually, the outcome that Ed O’Bannon was hoping for finally came. In 2014, a group of Division One athletes under the name Alston filed multiple antitrust complaints against the NCAA, claiming that the NCAA was violating Section One of the Sherman Act regarding student-athletes having the right to earn revenue based on their NIL. The Northern District Court of California issued a permanent injunction, ordering the NCAA to make its rules regarding financial compensation less restrictive. After the NCAA appealed the judgment, the appellate court affirmed this decision. Still not pleased with this decision, the NCAA again appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court (Dalimonte, 2023). The Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that the NCAA’s rules, which restricted education-related benefits for student-athletes, were a direct violation of antitrust laws (Krupka, 2023). This landmark ruling sparked a new age in collegiate sports. It was clear from this decision that the direction of the NCAA’s regulatory framework was about to shift. Then, in 2021, it did. 

On July 2, 2021, the NCAA adopted an interim policy in response to student-athletes’ new ability to receive NIL compensation. The policy was an attempt by the NCAA to ensure a regulatory framework for all NIL transactions, creating a uniform guideline for the process. The policy highlighted the following guidelines, which applied to collegiate athletes, prospective collegiate athletes, their families, and member schools: “Individuals can engage in NIL activities that are consistent with the law of the state where the school is located. Colleges and universities may be a resource for state law questions; College athletes who attend a school in a state without an NIL law can engage in this type of activity without violating NCAA rules related to name, image, and likeness; Individuals can use a professional services provider for NIL activities; student-athletes should report NIL activities consistent with state law or school and conference requirements to their school” (NCAA, 2021).

This interim policy was the first attempt at regulation as it pertained to NIL. However, while the policy did give some direction for how NIL would be handled, much of this new world was still the unregulated “wild west.” Student athletes still had no streamlined process for how to enter these deals, who they could and could not enter the deals with, and had no legal protections from businesses or other companies that could potentially take advantage of their lack of knowledge in contract law or business dealings. In addition, this interim policy essentially just leaves the decision on how to deal with NIL to individual state governments. All these factors have led to many attempts by the Federal government to pass legislation to create this streamlined process and create the legal protections for student athletes who do not have legal knowledge in this field.

The Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act

Nearly two years after the NCAA established its interim policy, in May 2023, Republican Ohio Representative Mike Carey introduced the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act, a piece of legislation that worked in tandem with the interim policy. This bill was also supported by Democratic Ohio Representative Greg Landsman, as well as sponsored by Republican Ohio Representative Anthony Gonzalez and Democratic Missouri Representative Emanuel Cleaver. According to this bill, an institution of higher education or a covered athletic organization (such as an athletic association, conference, or body which oversees intercollegiate athletics) was no longer allowed to regulate or limit the ability of a student-athlete to sign an agency contract, endorsement, or receive compensation for their name, image, or likeness (Carey, 2023). Further, the enforcement of this bill was to be conducted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), trumping state laws relating to these contracts. This bill also sought to establish the Covered Athletic Organization Commission, a commission originally proposed by Representatives Anthony Gonzalez and Emanuel Cleaver in 2020. This Commission intended to act as a body for dispute resolution among student athletes and their respective school and/or the NCAA (Dodd, 2020). As a result of this enforcement power, the FTC would have to do the following:

establish a clearinghouse for endorsement contracts entered into by student athletes and athlete agents; Require each student athlete and athlete agent to disclose to the clearinghouse each endorsement contract entered into with a value of more than $500; and; and establish a program to register athlete agents who represent student athletes, require such athlete agents to register, and treat a violation of such requirement as a violation regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices (Carey, 2023). 

There are a couple of important points that need clarification. The first is the creation of a clearinghouse. A clearinghouse, at least in NIL terms, is an organization designed to monitor and authorize third-party NIL deals between student-athletes and the organization with which they enter the deal. This organization would play a key role in supervising NIL deals and protecting the interests of both parties. The other large point of emphasis regarding this bill is that each student-athlete would be required to register with a program to be represented by an athletic agent. This component of the bill would have incredibly positive effects on the NIL transactional process. By including an individual with ample knowledge of the law who could facilitate deals with prospective organizations, these athletes are better protected from being exploited, creating a more equitable legal process. In the business world, businesses frequently bring in outside help to facilitate deals in which they are unfamiliar. This portion of the Act would do the same for the athletes. These components of this bill are so vital because they finally give the protection and guidance student athletes need to safely conduct NIL transactions. 

The Student Level Playing Field Act would have added regulation, which would have created another step in the NIL process for student athletes. However, there was opposition to this legislation, which caused the bill not to pass. Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell, as well as Democratic Senators Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal, voiced their concerns, mainly arguing that the legislation would ultimately undermine college athletes’ rights by limiting their ability to profit off NIL and potentially classify them as employees, creating a whole new cause for debate. 

Despite this Act never being passed by Congress, this proposed legislation created a general framework that set the standard for future proposals. Without correct legal guidance, such as NIL athletic agents and an overseeing clearinghouse organization, student-athletes' lack of knowledge regarding this new complicated environment could put them at risk of incorrectly entering endorsement deals. And for the NCAA, while this proposal would not allow the organization to regulate these transactions, the profits that come as a result of million-dollar deals with big-name athletes allow the NCAA to grow as a successful business entity and ensure that the athletes that lie under their protection are actually being protected, while simultaneously allowing the athletes to pursue profits of their own, creating a positive outcome for both parties. 

Related Federal NIL Legislation

Recently, developments in the field of NIL at the federal level are attempting to establish a more transparent framework that could regulate the process of NIL. On January 18, 2025, the House Innovation, Data, and Commerce Subcommittee held a hearing regarding NIL rights for collegiate athletes, specifically concerning a bill endorsed by Florida Republican Representative Gus Bilirakis called the FAIR College Sports Act, which attempts to provide protections for student-athletes. The bill aims to prohibit educational associations, conferences, and institutions from issuing NIL money to active students, prospective students, or the families of either. In turn, these associations, conferences, and institutions may prohibit an athlete from promoting any of the following: Gambling; Tobacco Products; Vaping or E-cigarettes; Alcohol Products; Controlled Substances; “Lewd and lascivious behavior or material”; “Any product or service that is reasonably considered to be inconsistent with the religious values of an institution.”

The reason behind prohibiting the above topics from being promoted is that the reputation of the athlete and the reputation of the school they are representing would be compromised. If a 19-year-old athlete were to be advertising alcohol products that they themselves cannot consume, it may create an unfavorable look for the athlete and the school they attend. In addition to the prohibition of these topics, the United States Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (USIAC) would be established with a board of directors composed of twenty-one members of ex-collegiate athletes who specialize in corporate governance. The purpose of the USIAC is to provide oversight and guidance on the NIL process for collegiate athletes, set rules to ensure fair practices and prevent the abuse of the “pay-to-play” atmosphere in college sports, as well as create a registration process for any collectives and donors involved in NIL deals, and establish a database of NIL-related information to maintain transparency for everyone involved in the NIL process (Knott, 2024). The FAIR College Sports Act creates protections that transcend legal implications; the Act protects athletes from the negative social outlooks of NIL as well. 

In 2020, Grant House, an Arizona State University swimmer, and Sedona Prince, a basketball player for the University of Texas, Texas Christian University, and the University of Oregon, filed an antitrust suit against the NCAA, with the aim of seeking damages and an injunction to prevent the NCAA from enforcing anticompetitive restraints that prohibited student-athletes from receiving compensation for NIL, even if the agreement conflicts with institutional rules or policies. In 2023, this suit became a certified class action lawsuit with two other suits, Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA, and in 2024, the parties agreed to a ten-year settlement agreement. After a final hearing on April 7, 2025, it was determined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that the NCAA and the Power Five conferences would pay $2.576 billion to divided class members from House, Hubbard, and Carter over a span of ten years. The class members receiving the damages were separated into three distinct damage classes: Football and Men’s Basketball, Women’s Basketball, and Additional Sports.

The settlement damages were divided into two categories: a “NIL Claims Settlement” category and an “Additional Compensation Claims Settlement” category. These categories were broken into several sub-categories that were distributed to various groups, including video game NIL injuries and a “pay-to-play” category that was allocated to different NCAA collegiate programs. With respect to the injunctive relief portion of the settlement, there were four key provisions as follows: “Scholarship limits are eliminated at Division I schools who opt in to the settlement; The NCAA may prohibit NIL payments to student athletes by a limited set of Associated Entities or Individuals, however, the NCAA may not prohibit NIL payments by other third parties; Roster limits for each sport must be adopted for Division I schools who opt in; provided that, the House settlement exempts Division I class members whose roster spots were taken in the 2024-25 season or would have been taken away in 2025-26 from roster limits for the duration of their college athletics careers; NCAA rules will be modified to permit schools who opt in to the settlement to provide additional direct benefits and compensation to Division I student athletes that are worth up to 22% of the Power Five schools’ average athletic revenues each year, with yearly increases. This is the Direct Payment model as outlined below.” The Power Five conferences also created the College Sports Commission (CSC), which oversees the provisions of the settlement (Ropes & Gray, 2025).

In response to this monumental settlement from the court case House, the CSC created an online clearinghouse portal for student athletes called NIL Go. This portal is enforced by the accounting firm Deloitte and was created to evaluate NIL contracts and establish if said contract falls within a “reasonable range of compensation.” Athletes entering NIL deals exceeding $600 must report the deal to this portal. Once an athlete inputs a NIL deal into the system, the system will determine whether their deals are cleared, rejected, or flagged for further review (Lowndes, 2025). So, while the Student Level Playing Field Act did not pass Congress, the ideas the Act created, such as a universal clearinghouse, paved the way for modern legislation.

NIL from the Perspective of College Athletes

The new reality of college sports is that players are no longer choosing schools for their culture or program, but rather basing decisions on how much money can be earned. Robert Porco, a right-handed pitcher in the Dodgers minor league organization and ex-West Virginia University pitcher, highlighted the toxicity of this new atmosphere, stating, “In the middle of the season, we would have guys who, they’ll be pitching well, and they'll walk up to the coach's office, and they'll say, ‘Hey, I'm throwing well, I want this much money. I want this car. I want, you know, this,’ and [the coach] will give it to them if they're throwing well enough, because they want [the player] to stay. Because the big thing about the [environment] is that it is literally free agency. Every player can be a free agent. You can just hit the portal, and everybody can throw you as much money as you want. So, it's the game of, when you're at a [university or college], you'll have guys who will be like, ‘Okay, throw me this amount of money, or else, I'll hit the portal.’ (Porco, 2025).” 

When Porco was playing baseball at West Virginia University, he expressed how NIL compliance officers would come in at the beginning of the year and explain the NIL process to all the student-athletes. These compliance officers were also there as a resource to any athletes who had any questions regarding this process. At West Virginia University, an app called Icon Suite was launched for student-athletes to connect with prospective organizations that were interested in signing NIL deals with the athletes. At this “NIL Meeting,” Porco explained that “[The compliance officers] come in and they tell us about how to use this app that we have that gives us any opportunities, and how you can make your own opportunities or sign up for ones that companies offer. And then, usually they'll have us sell shirt jerseys on our website, so it'll have your name and number on the back, so they make you sign some contract for it, and you're supposed to get paid for that (Porco, 2025).”

This process at West Virginia University is not a universal process; while each school does follow the same federal regulations, different schools have their own process regarding NIL. For example, at Virginia Tech, they use a different platform to navigate NIL opportunities. Ben Watson, ex-centerfielder for the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) baseball team and current outfielder for the Washington Wild Things semi-professional baseball organization, revealed that “for Virginia Tech, they use a company called Triumph. So, our coaches communicate with them, basically figuring out what and how big the pool of money they have is for a specific sport, and then obviously it's the coach's job to split that up and divide it between their players” (Watson, 2025). Watson stated that this process in regard to NIL was not as toxic at Virginia Tech as it is at other programs, such as West Virginia. Despite being told by university officials and coaches not to talk about personal NIL profits and deals, Porco explained that baseball players at West Virginia had no problem boasting their earnings, creating an unfortunate “pay-to-play” environment. However, at Virginia Tech, Watson stated that the players typically listen to these officials and keep the information to themselves.

However, even in the environments in which players do not use NIL as leverage over their teammates, there is no shortage of using NIL to leverage professional organizations for the top-end men and women who want to play at the next level. Watson declared that “it definitely adds a different aspect of leverage. When negotiating with a MLB team, you see guys now they're like, 90% sure they are getting drafted, and they'll enter the [transfer] portal just to see, what the highest deal they can get from another school is, just so they can have that leverage over a MLB organization to get more money from them (Watson, 2025).” This shows how the current realm of NIL has drastically shifted the hopes and dreams of college athletes across the country. Even as recently as ten years ago, athletes were entering collegiate sports with the hope of going to play professionally. With college athletes making millions of dollars, players are choosing to stay in school longer to attempt to accumulate more earnings and create more brand deals before going to play professionally. These facts underscore the importance of NIL regulation. If this “wild west” atmosphere is not tamed, not only can players be exploited by organizations, but players can also exploit the NCAA, schools and universities, as well as professional teams, into giving these young adults more money. 

The question now lies in how to best move forward. What is the greatest pathway to balance the rights and concerns of student-athletes, the NCAA, and the third-party businesses that do business with these athletes? That answer, at least as NIL stands today, lies with the NCAA. As the NCAA is the governing body of all collegiate sports, the most efficient way to ensure all academic institutions are utilizing a uniform NIL process is by creating a mandated procedure that all student-athletes and their respective institutions must follow in order to conduct NIL transactions. This framework could use items already created, such as the NIL Go clearinghouse, as well as expand on ideas such as using phone applications to have these student-athletes reach out to third-party companies and vice versa. Also, this framework could implement more oversight from NIL Officers or sports agents at each school, ensuring someone with legal knowledge is actively supervising the process and dealings. Finally, restricting athletes to a maximum number of transfers to other colleges or universities so athletes cannot use NIL earnings as leverage over schools will ensure that each institution has its interests also being protected. Even if the framework does not look exactly like this, a process that creates uniformity is how the problem can be combatted. 

Conclusion

The creation and evolution of NIL have reshaped the landscape of collegiate athletics, exposing flaws in the current NCAA governance model. It is clear that this model has not been adequately molded to field concerns as they pertain to NIL, which could cause student-athletes to suffer as a result. However, there is hope for the future of the NIL world. Antitrust suits such as O’Bannon, Alston, and House established precedents in this new field of law, paving the way to legislative attempts such as the Student Level Playing Field Act and the Fair College Sports Act. From these Acts came the modern standard of NIL transactions, such as the creation of the CSC, the NIL Go clearinghouse, and apps that create NIL opportunities for athletes. In a few years’ time, this current model of NIL will be a thing of the past, as safer, better, and equitable access to the NIL process will be available to all athletes.

While there certainly have been noticeable gaps being exposed in the NIL system, an increasing amount of legislation is being put out to try to give a sense of protection, uniformity, and fairness to all student-athletes, while also protecting the interests of the NCAA, organizations that issue NIL deals, and educational institutions. As of now, the legislative environment of NIL both empowers and endangers the young adults who compete at the collegiate level. But through the power of the federal government and legislative authority, this environment’s uncertain future will soon become a reality of the past, paving the way for all parties in NIL deals to have a safe and uniform process to conduct business. 

Ultimately, this shift in college sports towards NIL represents both a challenge and an opportunity. A challenge to reform the now-outdated NCAA regulatory framework, while simultaneously presenting an opportunity to build a more transparent and safe NIL system, is likely to bring about profits for all parties involved. If policymakers in the NCAA, educational institutions, and the federal government can work together to update the status quo of college sports, the notion of a “wild west” in this industry will evolve into a mere common business practice, one that will finally level the playing field for student-athletes.

Bibliography 

Berkowitz, S. (2025, February 27). NCAA shows revenue increase to $1.4 billion and $166 million surplus in 2024 fiscal year. USA TODAY. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2025/02/27/ncaa-financial-report-revenue-surplus/80733616007/

Carey, M. (2023, May 26). H.R.3630 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3630

Dalimonte, A. (2023, April 7). NCAA vs. Alston: The Case That Changed College Athletics Forever. Fosterswift.com. https://www.fosterswift.com/newsroom/publications/NIL-NCAA-Alston-Case-College-Athletics

Dodd, D. (2020, September 25). Bipartisan name, image, likeness bill introduced to U.S. House would supersede state laws for college athletes. CBSSports.com. https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/bipartisan-name-image-likeness-bill-introduced-to-u-s-house-would-supersede-state-laws-for-college-athletes/

Knott, K. (2024, January 19). Draft NIL Legislation Aims to “Save College Sports as We Know It.” Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/2024/01/19/draft-nil-bill-aims-save-college-sports-we-know-it

Krupka , Y. (2023). True Uniformity: Why Congress Should Adopt the Federal Name, Image, and Likeness Standard Outlined in the “Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act.” Seton Hall University. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2520&context=student_scholarship

Lowndes. (2025, July 9). NIL Go: A Clearinghouse for All NIL Deals. Lowndes-Law.com. https://www.lowndes-law.com/newsroom/insights/nil-go-a-clearinghouse-for-all-nil-deals

Mcleod, A. (n.d.). O’Bannon v. NCAA – American University Business Law Review. Aublr.org. https://aublr.org/2015/11/obannon-v-ncaa/

NCAA. (2021, May 4). History. NCAA.org. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/4/history.aspx

On3. (2024, April 25). On3 NIL Valuations. On3.com. https://www.on3.com/nil/rankings/player/nil-valuations/

Porco, R. (2025, June 26). Personal Experience NIL Interview Two (J. Marraccini, Interviewer) [Personal communication].

Ropes & Gray. (2025, June 20). House v. NCAA Settlement Approved: Era of Direct Payments to College Athletes Begins. Ropesgray.com. https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/06/house-v-ncaa-settlement-approved-era-of-direct-payments-to-college-athletes-begins

Watson, B. (2025 6). Personal Experience NIL Interview One (J. Marraccini, Interviewer) [Personal communication].