The name, image and likeness (NIL) era in college sports continues to expand at the high school level. A high-profile lawsuit brought in the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, by the mother of a five-star wide receiver committed to play Division I football in 2027 prompted a policy shift by the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA). The complaint in Jasmine Brown v. Ohio High School Athletic Association alleged that OHSAA’s prohibition on NIL compensation unlawfully deprived Ohio high school athletes of income-earning opportunities available to their peers in other states.
On Oct. 20, 2025, the court issued a temporary restraining order, suspending enforcement of OHSAA’s NIL ban during the pendency of the lawsuit. And on Nov. 24, 2025, OHSAA adopted an emergency referendum authorizing NIL compensation for high school athletes.
The national landscape of NIL in high school is fragmented. While approximately 40 states permit high school athletes to receive compensation for their NIL, laws and policies vary widely across jurisdictions and governing bodies at the state and county levels. This inconsistency has created a complex patchwork that impacts recruiting, athlete eligibility and school compliance. Six states continue to restrict NIL compensation for high school athletes: Alabama, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi and Wyoming.
Potential Legal Issues on the Horizon
As more states move toward allowing high school athletes to profit from NIL deals, issues such as contract enforceability for minors, conflicts with amateurism rules, and the role of agents or third parties will become increasingly salient.
- Contract enforceability for minors will be a central challenge. Many high school athletes are under the age of majority, raising issues of capacity to contract, parental or guardian consent, and the applicability of “infancy doctrine” defenses.
- Amateurism and eligibility rules remain a moving target. Even in permissive states, NIL activity may be restricted in ways that intersect with team eligibility, school codes of conduct and association bylaws. The line between permissible NIL endorsement and impermissible pay-for-play or recruiting inducements requires close scrutiny, particularly as private and school-affiliated booster entities, if any, operate near the margins.
- Agent and third-party involvement will demand clear guardrails. Representation agreements with minors, fee arrangements, fiduciary duties, conflicts of interest and licensure requirements for agents can implicate state law and association policies. Schools and associations may need to consider transparent policies distinguishing permissible advisory roles from recruiting inducements or school-controlled NIL activity.
Compliance Imperatives for High Schools, Athletes and Brands
Clear policies, education and transparency are essential for NIL compliance efforts. Schools should consider adopting written NIL policies addressing disclosure of deals, use of school marks and facilities, conflicts of interest, prohibitions on performance-based compensation, and coordination with school officials. Schools may consider identifying for students the importance of receiving tax advice, the written agreements with clear deliverables and timelines, and the need to avoid inducement-style payments that could jeopardize future eligibility at the college level. Brands and media partners should closely review association rules, particularly around the use of uniforms, logos, and event footage, and ensure marketing campaigns do not cross into recruiting inducements.
Driving Forward in the High School NIL Era
Looking ahead, the high school NIL landscape will continue to evolve quickly. In Ohio, the emergency referendum opens the door to NIL compensation while ongoing litigation may shape the contours of permissible activity. More broadly, there likely will be more emphasis on education, transparency and protections that help young athletes understand their rights and obligations. Schools and governing bodies will be tasked with balancing athlete empowerment with maintaining competitive integrity and safeguarding minors.
Some high schools are entering into multimillion-dollar deals with multimedia companies, including one California sports powerhouse that won five national championships in the past seven years. As schools deepen relationships with content platforms and sponsors, NIL intersects with broader questions of who controls and monetizes the value of high school athletics. This expansion raises issues around intellectual property, rights of publicity, privacy and equitable access.
For questions about the impact of NIL compensation in high school and providing feedback to legislators, contact the authors of this article or your McGuireWoods contacts on the Sports and the Education Industry Teams.