The Sky Is Not Falling: Why Name, Image, and Likeness Legislation Does Not Violate Title IX and Could Narrow the Publicity Gap Between Men’s Sport and Women’s Sport Athletes

For decades, the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (“NCAA”) amateurism rules have largely prevented NCAA athletes from commercializing their names, images, and likenesses (“NIL”). The right to license and profit from one’s own image, often referred to as the “Right of Publicity,” is explicitly recognized by statute or common law in 35 states. No federal Right of Publicity statute exists, but in 1977, the United States Supreme Court recognized the right. However, until 2021, NCAA athletes were precluded from benefiting from this right, as under the NCAA’s amateurism principle, “An individual loses amateur status and thus shall not be eligible for intercollegiate competition in a particular sport ...” if he “[u]ses athletics skill (directly or indirectly) for pay in any form in that sport.” Until July 1, 2021, by becoming an NCAA athlete and complying with the NCAA’s Bylaws to maintain eligibility, NCAA athletes gave up their right to benefit from their NIL while competing in NCAA athletics. This relinquishment put full commercial marketing control of the athlete, their team, and the college sport in the NCAA’s hands. Research shows that despite the application of Title IX to sport in 1975, NCAA women’s sports have not been commercially marketed in parity with NCAA men’s sports, with NCAA men’s sports experiencing significant publicity and sponsorship windfalls. This article examines the recent decision by the NCAA to allow NCAA athletes to benefit from their NIL, the potential Title IX implications of the decision, and how the decision could narrow the publicity gap between NCAA men’s and women’s sport athletes in furtherance of the plain language and intent of Title IX.

Sport-Related and Psychosocial Factors Associated With Motives and Consequences Of Alcohol and Cannabis Use Among NCAA Athletes: A Systematic Review

Aims To review differences in alcohol- and cannabis-related motives and consequences among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes as a function of athlete characteristics (e.g. gender and competition season status). Methods Procedures followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, PsycINFO and manual reference list review were used to identify studies that reported alcohol- or cannabis-related motives and consequences among NCAA athletes as a function of gender, race, season status, division level or sport-type through December 2019. Relevant findings and any reported psychosocial correlates were extracted by two independent reviewers. Results The majority of studies (K = 15) focused on alcohol-related motives or consequences, with one examining cannabis-related motives, and no studies examined cannabis-related consequences. Social drinking motives were strongest among men and White NCAA athletes, and athlete-specific motives were most salient for men and in-season athletes. Cannabis use motives for positive reinforcement (e.g. enhancement) and coping were also strongest during the in-season. Negative alcohol-related consequences were greatest among men, athletes of color and out-of-season athletes, although women and in-season athletes experienced more consequences in athletic performance. Our exploratory aim revealed two studies that examined psychosocial correlates, and the results indicate that sensation-seeking, stress and negative affect were associated with more alcohol-related consequences. Conclusion NCAA athletes are a heterogenous population, and their motives and consequences of use appear to vary across multiple athlete factors (e.g., gender). This review highlights the gaps in the literature and suggests future research directions to identify the risk and protective factors for substance use among NCAA athletes.

Early Sport Specialization Among Former National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletes: Trends, Scholarship Attainment, Injury, and Attrition

Background: Many youth athletes focus on 1 sport to gain a competitive advantage, but early sport specialization may increase risk of overuse injuries and burnout. College athletes have successfully achieved advanced status; therefore, the study of their specialization patterns is a method to assess how specialization affects an athletic career. Purpose: To determine trends in sport specialization by sex, sport, and decade of participation in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes and assess the effect of specialization on scholarship attainment, injury, and attrition. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to NCAA athletes who participated from 1960 to 2018. Survey topics included sex, sport, decade of participation, scholarship status, ≥30-day time-loss injuries sustained in college, orthopaedic surgery in college, career length, and age of single-sport specialization. Early specialization was defined as specialization in a single sport before age 15 years. Rates of early specialization were calculated for each sport, sex, individual and team sports, and decade of participation. Rates of scholarship attainment, injury, and attrition were compared between groups. Univariate associations were queried with logistic regression analysis to determine predictors of specialization, scholarship attainment, injury, and early attrition. Results: Of 1550 athletes who participated (17% response rate), 544 (35.1%) were women. Overall, 18.1% of athletes specialized before age 15 years (n = 281). Athletes in gymnastics, tennis, swimming and diving, and soccer were significantly more likely to specialize early, whereas football and baseball athletes were more likely to specialize late ( P < .05 for all groups). Early specialization was more common among women (23.4% vs 15.2%; odds ratio, 1.72; P < .01). There was a trend toward earlier specialization for recent college graduates, with graduates from the last decade more likely to be classified as early specialization than those from previous decades ( P = .036). Scholarship attainment was overall equivalent between groups. Time-loss injuries, lower extremity injuries, and orthopaedic surgery in college were not statistically different between groups. Career lengths were similar, but burnout was more common among early specialization athletes (10.5% vs 7.0%; odds ratio, 3.76; P < .01). Conclusion: Less than one-fifth of NCAA athletes surveyed specialized before age 15 years, and neither scholarship attainment nor time-loss injury rate was affected by early specialization. Early specialization is on the rise but is associated with increased burnout.