Since the landmark shift on July 1, 2021, when the NCAA suspended its longstanding prohibition on athlete compensation for name, image, and likeness activities, more than 30 states have enacted their own NIL statutes, resulting in a complex mosaic of rules that student‑athletes and institutions must navigate.

For instance, the Arkansas Student‑Athlete Publicity Rights Act exempts NIL income from state income tax retroactive to January 1, 2025, while states such as Georgia and Texas have chosen to extend NIL rights to high‑school athletes. Meanwhile, nine states, including Florida and Ohio, still prohibit high‑school NIL compensation.

Several states have experimented with innovative provisions aimed at leveling the playing field for non‑revenue sports. California's Fair Pay to Play Act includes language that encourages universities to allocate a portion of NIL collective funds to Olympic‑sport student-athletes. In summary, each state's unique framework creates challenges and more uniform and consistent policies would be ideal.

Individual universities have responded to the rapidly evolving NIL landscape by crafting detailed, institution‑specific policies that build on federal, state, and NCAA requirements. At most schools, every prospective and signed NIL agreement must be submitted to the compliance office for review.

Some universities have gone further by establishing centralized "NIL collectives" or "athlete endorsement funds" that pool donor or alumni contributions and distribute them according to transparent, rule‑based criteria. The Texas One Fund at the University of Texas not only allocated $11.7 million to athletes in 2023 but also published sport‑level distribution reports.

Similarly, the NIL initiative at UCLA collaborates with campus academic units to offer credit‑bearing courses in sports marketing and entrepreneurship, giving athletes both academic credit and practical experience in building their personal brands.

Athletic conferences have taken on a hybrid role, issuing model policies and lobbying for more consistent rules. The SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and Big 12 have each drafted "best practices" for NIL disclosures, caps on collective spending, and guidelines for third‑party service providers.

Conferences also facilitate compliance workshops and share data on market valuations, helping schools benchmark deals and maintain competitive balance. Yet without binding federal law, conferences must continually adapt model rules to each state's statute and the evolving terms of the pending NCAA settlement—making their governance both critical and complex.

To provide guardrails around athlete's newfound freedom of NIL, the NCAA's Division I Council has implemented a variety of disclosure and education requirements. As of January 2024, all Division I institutions must report every NIL contract to the NCAA's central database, including the identities of the parties, the total deal value, and the nature of the services provided.

Looking ahead, the NCAA is actively monitoring state and federal developments and stands ready to adjust its bylaws once a final resolution to the proposed $2.8 billion antitrust settlement is reached in the House vs NCAA case.

Divisions II and III are similar, but both tailor their policies towards their respective competition levels. Division II has similar opportunities, but with less regulation due to budget constraints and lower stakes. Division III emphasizes the student much beyond the athlete as athletes cannot even receive scholarships, though they may sign endorsement deals and collect NIL.