Federal Action Is Needed to Protect College Athletes in the NIL Era
March 25, 2026
By Craig Bohl, Executive Director, American Football Coaches Association
College sports have entered a historic new era — one in which athletes are finally legally permitted to share in the value they generate. Through Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights and revenue-sharing reforms, long-overdue financial compensation for college athletes is a reality. This progress deserves recognition and protection.
But alongside this well-deserved compensation, a serious and growing problem has emerged. Coaches across the country are sounding the alarm about the dramatic rise of unqualified, unregulated and sometimes unethical, individuals operating as so-called “agents” representing college athletes in financial negotiations.
In today’s environment, it often appears that the only credentials required to call yourself a college sports “agent” are a cell phone and an email address.
Unlike agents in professional leagues — who must meet defined standards, pass background checks, adhere to codes of conduct, and face discipline for misconduct — there is no single national governing framework regulating who may represent college athletes in NIL matters. The result is a federal regulatory vacuum at the precise moment when young athletes and their families are entering increasingly complex financial arrangements.
A February 2026 ESPN investigation detailed concerns from administrators and coaches who report that individuals with no credentials are inserting themselves into NIL negotiations, often promising opportunities they cannot deliver. In many cases, these intermediaries demand excessive percentages of athletes’ compensation, pressure families into rushed agreements, and encourage transfers or other disruptive decisions that may not serve the athlete’s long-term academic, financial or athletic development.
The lack of national standards and rules for “agents” creates three serious risks.
First: financial exploitation. Many NIL contracts now involve substantial sums of money. Yet there are no standardized disclosure requirements, no limits on percentage-based fees, and no uniform fiduciary duty requiring representatives to act in the athlete’s best interest. Young athletes and their parents may lack the financial literacy or legal guidance necessary to fully understand contract terms, tax consequences, or long-term obligations.
Some college “agents” reportedly take commissions as high as 20–30 percent. By contrast, professional agents are typically limited to 3–5 percent. Without guardrails, athletes can unknowingly surrender significant portions of their earnings in exchange for minimal services. When compensation structures are opaque and conflicts undisclosed, the potential for abuse is obvious.
Second: conflicts of interest and transfer manipulation. In today’s college sports landscape, NIL compensation is increasingly intertwined with recruiting and transfer decisions. Some unregulated intermediaries seek to financially benefit from encouraging athletes to enter the transfer portal, renegotiate agreements, or switch institutions — even when a transfer harms the athlete’s academic progress or hurts their long-term financial or athletic trajectory.
College “agents” are not uniformly bound by enforceable conflict-of-interest standards. They may maintain undisclosed relationships with collectives or sponsors, or structure deals that prioritize their own short-term financial gain over the athletes’ long-term stability.
Third: legal fragmentation and regulatory chaos. Many states have enacted NIL statutes, but the resulting patchwork of inconsistent rules, definitions, disclosure requirements, and enforcement mechanisms has created chaos and uncertainty —a “wild west” NIL marketplace. What is permissible in one state may be restricted in another. Registration standards, if they exist at all, vary widely. Enforcement is uneven and often limited.
College sports and NIL commerce are inherently national and interstate. National brands, digital platforms, and multi-state collectives do not operate within state boundaries. A marketplace of this scale demands consistent national standards, not 40 or 50 separate state regulatory experiments.
To be sure, federal law has already recognized the risks inherent in the agent-athlete relationship. The Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA), enacted in 2004, requires certain disclosures and was designed to protect student-athletes from deceptive practices. But SPARTA predates the NIL era by two decades. It was written long before NIL collectives, the transfer portal, and revenue-sharing reshaped the economics of college sports. SPARTA is no longer sufficient for today’s marketplace and needs to be updated.
The good news is that regulators and policymakers increasingly understand that the current system leaves athletes vulnerable.
On January 12, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into whether college sports “agents” are complying with existing federal laws intended to protect student-athletes. The FTC’s action underscores a simple reality: federal regulators concern about agent misconduct is no longer speculative.
President Trump convened a presidential roundtable on March 6 to examine the future of college sports. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have introduced bipartisan legislation addressing unregistered and unqualified college sports “agents,” among other reforms. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) has likewise emphasized the need for a national solution.
At a minimum, federal policymakers should pursue four core reforms.
First, establish a unified national framework governing individuals who represent high school and college athletes in NIL negotiations. Whether housed within an existing entity such as the College Sports Commission or NCAA, or within a newly authorized body, oversight must be consistent and enforceable.
Second, require mandatory registration and certification. Representatives should undergo background checks, disclose disciplinary history, and demonstrate knowledge of applicable law. A publicly accessible registry would provide transparency to athletes and families.
Third, college agents must be subject to clear fiduciary duties and enforceable conflict-of-interest standards. Commissions should align with professional norms and be limited to 3–5 percent of compensation. College athletes deserve representatives who are legally obligated to put the athletes’ interests first. Many current Coaches report that some college “agents” steer athletes toward decisions that benefit the agent financially but cost the student academically, monetarily and athletically.
Fourth, modernize SPARTA to reflect the NIL marketplace, with updated disclosure requirements, stronger enforcement tools, and explicit protections for minors.
These reforms are not about restricting opportunity. They are about ensuring opportunity is not used against the very athletes it was meant to empower.
If the federal government fails to act, the NIL and revenue-sharing era risks being defined not by empowerment, but by exploitation.
For more information about the AFCA, visit www.AFCA.com. For more interesting articles, check out The Insider and subscribe to our weekly email.
If you are interested in more in-depth articles and videos, please become an AFCA member. You can find out more information about membership and specific member benefits on the AFCA Membership Overview page. If you are ready to join, please fill out the AFCA Membership Application.
« « Previous Post
By Craig Bohl, Executive Director, American Football Coaches Association
College sports have entered a historic new era — one in which athletes are finally legally permitted to share in the value they generate. Through Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights and revenue-sharing reforms, long-overdue financial compensation for college athletes is a reality. This progress deserves recognition and protection.
But alongside this well-deserved compensation, a serious and growing problem has emerged. Coaches across the country are sounding the alarm about the dramatic rise of unqualified, unregulated and sometimes unethical, individuals operating as so-called “agents” representing college athletes in financial negotiations.
In today’s environment, it often appears that the only credentials required to call yourself a college sports “agent” are a cell phone and an email address.
Unlike agents in professional leagues — who must meet defined standards, pass background checks, adhere to codes of conduct, and face discipline for misconduct — there is no single national governing framework regulating who may represent college athletes in NIL matters. The result is a federal regulatory vacuum at the precise moment when young athletes and their families are entering increasingly complex financial arrangements.
A February 2026 ESPN investigation detailed concerns from administrators and coaches who report that individuals with no credentials are inserting themselves into NIL negotiations, often promising opportunities they cannot deliver. In many cases, these intermediaries demand excessive percentages of athletes’ compensation, pressure families into rushed agreements, and encourage transfers or other disruptive decisions that may not serve the athlete’s long-term academic, financial or athletic development.
The lack of national standards and rules for “agents” creates three serious risks.
First: financial exploitation. Many NIL contracts now involve substantial sums of money. Yet there are no standardized disclosure requirements, no limits on percentage-based fees, and no uniform fiduciary duty requiring representatives to act in the athlete’s best interest. Young athletes and their parents may lack the financial literacy or legal guidance necessary to fully understand contract terms, tax consequences, or long-term obligations.
Some college “agents” reportedly take commissions as high as 20–30 percent. By contrast, professional agents are typically limited to 3–5 percent. Without guardrails, athletes can unknowingly surrender significant portions of their earnings in exchange for minimal services. When compensation structures are opaque and conflicts undisclosed, the potential for abuse is obvious.
Second: conflicts of interest and transfer manipulation. In today’s college sports landscape, NIL compensation is increasingly intertwined with recruiting and transfer decisions. Some unregulated intermediaries seek to financially benefit from encouraging athletes to enter the transfer portal, renegotiate agreements, or switch institutions — even when a transfer harms the athlete’s academic progress or hurts their long-term financial or athletic trajectory.
College “agents” are not uniformly bound by enforceable conflict-of-interest standards. They may maintain undisclosed relationships with collectives or sponsors, or structure deals that prioritize their own short-term financial gain over the athletes’ long-term stability.
Third: legal fragmentation and regulatory chaos. Many states have enacted NIL statutes, but the resulting patchwork of inconsistent rules, definitions, disclosure requirements, and enforcement mechanisms has created chaos and uncertainty —a “wild west” NIL marketplace. What is permissible in one state may be restricted in another. Registration standards, if they exist at all, vary widely. Enforcement is uneven and often limited.
College sports and NIL commerce are inherently national and interstate. National brands, digital platforms, and multi-state collectives do not operate within state boundaries. A marketplace of this scale demands consistent national standards, not 40 or 50 separate state regulatory experiments.
To be sure, federal law has already recognized the risks inherent in the agent-athlete relationship. The Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA), enacted in 2004, requires certain disclosures and was designed to protect student-athletes from deceptive practices. But SPARTA predates the NIL era by two decades. It was written long before NIL collectives, the transfer portal, and revenue-sharing reshaped the economics of college sports. SPARTA is no longer sufficient for today’s marketplace and needs to be updated.
The good news is that regulators and policymakers increasingly understand that the current system leaves athletes vulnerable.
On January 12, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into whether college sports “agents” are complying with existing federal laws intended to protect student-athletes. The FTC’s action underscores a simple reality: federal regulators concern about agent misconduct is no longer speculative.
President Trump convened a presidential roundtable on March 6 to examine the future of college sports. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have introduced bipartisan legislation addressing unregistered and unqualified college sports “agents,” among other reforms. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) has likewise emphasized the need for a national solution.
At a minimum, federal policymakers should pursue four core reforms.
First, establish a unified national framework governing individuals who represent high school and college athletes in NIL negotiations. Whether housed within an existing entity such as the College Sports Commission or NCAA, or within a newly authorized body, oversight must be consistent and enforceable.
Second, require mandatory registration and certification. Representatives should undergo background checks, disclose disciplinary history, and demonstrate knowledge of applicable law. A publicly accessible registry would provide transparency to athletes and families.
Third, college agents must be subject to clear fiduciary duties and enforceable conflict-of-interest standards. Commissions should align with professional norms and be limited to 3–5 percent of compensation. College athletes deserve representatives who are legally obligated to put the athletes’ interests first. Many current Coaches report that some college “agents” steer athletes toward decisions that benefit the agent financially but cost the student academically, monetarily and athletically.
Fourth, modernize SPARTA to reflect the NIL marketplace, with updated disclosure requirements, stronger enforcement tools, and explicit protections for minors.
These reforms are not about restricting opportunity. They are about ensuring opportunity is not used against the very athletes it was meant to empower.
If the federal government fails to act, the NIL and revenue-sharing era risks being defined not by empowerment, but by exploitation.
For more information about the AFCA, visit www.AFCA.com. For more interesting articles, check out The Insider and subscribe to our weekly email.
If you are interested in more in-depth articles and videos, please become an AFCA member. You can find out more information about membership and specific member benefits on the AFCA Membership Overview page. If you are ready to join, please fill out the AFCA Membership Application.
