The University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa is pushing the Hawaiʻi state legislature to support its athletics program, including a $5 million annual fund dedicated to NIL (Name, Image & Likeness) opportunities for student-athletes. UH Athletics asked lawmakers for roughly $5 million per year to establish an institutional NIL fund that would help the school: - Recruit top talent - Retain current student-athletes - Offer competitive NIL compensation under the new NCAA settlement framework This proposal happened in a hearing before state higher education committees, with UH leaders and coaches presenting their case. UH officials argue that NIL is now a standard part of college athletics, used not just for recruiting but also for keeping players enrolled and competitive, especially as other schools increase their own NIL budgets. Coaches emphasized that competitive offers have already affected roster decisions, with one coach noting players’ NIL market value influencing choices on where they want to play. This funding push comes as UH also seeks broader legislative support for athletics, including operating and capital improvements beyond NIL. Whether lawmakers will approve the NIL-specific funding is still under discussion, but the proposal highlights how crucial NIL resources have become for college programs, especially those outside power conferences. Do you think state funding for athletic NIL programs is a necessary investment to keep schools competitive, or should NIL compensation be handled entirely through private fundraising and external sponsorships? 👇 Share your thoughts! READ MORE: https://www.kitv.com/sports/uh-athletics/uh-athletics-seeks-5m-for-nil-policies-from-state-legislature/article_939aab59-66ec-4675-9f36-15cca1189b47.html

A bill that would have allowed high school athletes in Mississippi to earn NIL income failed to advance this session, dying in the Mississippi House Judiciary A Committee before a vote. The proposed legislation, known as the Mississippi High School Student-Athlete NIL Protection Act, was written to create a framework where student-athletes could be compensated for their name, image, and likeness under specific rules. Here’s what the bill would have done: - Allowed high school athletes to earn money from endorsements, social media posts, appearances, etc., as long as pay was not tied to performance or used as an inducement to transfer. - Required parent or guardian consent for NIL agreements for minors. - Set up a system where earnings over a certain amount would be placed in a restricted trust account until age 18 or graduation. Mississippi is currently one of the few states without NIL protections for high school athletes, and the bill’s failure means that status remains unchanged for now. Stakeholders, including the Mississippi High School Activities Association and some coaches, expressed concerns about competitive balance, fairness, and the impact on amateurism. Should high school athletes be allowed to earn NIL income under structured protections or do concerns about competitive balance, recruiting, and amateurism outweigh the benefits? 👇 What’s your take? READ MORE: https://www.winonatimes.com/high-school-nil-legislation-quietly-dies-mississippi-698e27e8be23b

Oregon Ducks quarterback Dante Moore, one of college football’s top talents and a high-profile name in the NIL landscape, recently spoke about his approach to NIL and how he balances it with football. Moore has been successful in NIL, with a valuation around $3 million and deals with brands like Panini America, Beats by Dre, and Nike, showing how top athletes can secure major partnerships during their college careers. Moore keeps his NIL work in perspective. He says that while some critics think NIL has gotten too big, he views it as a deserved opportunity to be compensated for his name and influence especially given the financial realities student-athletes face today. He emphasized that NIL isn’t just about money for him, but also about personal meaning and fulfillment, growing up watching big athletes in commercials makes achieving similar opportunities “pretty dope,” as he put it. Interestingly, Moore said NIL did not factor into his decision to return to Oregon for another season, suggesting that while NIL earnings are important, his choice was based more on football and personal goals. Moore’s approach reflects a growing trend among elite athletes: - NIL deals can be significant even in the millions - But balancing brand work and performance requires focus - Athletes are increasingly viewing NIL as one part of their overall brand journey, not the whole thing How should elite athletes like Dante Moore balance NIL opportunities with performance and long-term goals and what advice would you give someone navigating both at the same time? READ MORE: https://www.on3.com/nil/news/dante-moore-discusses-approach-nil-how-he-balances-football-oregon/

Texas Longhorns wide receiver Cam Coleman, a top transfer from Auburn, has officially signed a name, image, and likeness (NIL) partnership with Crocs. Here’s what’s noteworthy about this deal: Coleman’s NIL valuation is estimated at $2.9 million, ranking him among the top players nationally according to On3’s NIL valuation list. Crocs, a major global footwear brand, chose Coleman as a partner, showing that non-traditional athletic brands are increasingly investing in college athletes. This deal comes as Coleman prepares for his first season with Texas, where he figures to play a major role in a high-profile offense alongside rising stars like Arch Manning. Deals like this highlight that NIL isn’t just about local sponsors or smaller partnerships, major consumer brands are actively targeting top college talent. Coleman’s Crocs deal shows that top-tier NIL opportunities can go beyond traditional sports marketing, global lifestyle brands are stepping in when an athlete’s personal brand aligns with their audience and style. What do you think makes an athlete appealing to a big lifestyle brand like Crocs and how can other athletes position themselves to attract similar deals? READ MORE: https://www.on3.com/nil/news/texas-wr-cam-coleman-inks-nil-deal-with-crocs/

In a major development out of Alabama, a judge just handed what could be one of the most important legal wins for the NCAA in years and it has ripple effects well beyond one player. What Happened? - Charles Bediako, a 7-foot center and former pro, sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association after they denied his eligibility to play college basketball again after signing multiple NBA contracts and spending time in the G League. - A Tuscaloosa (Alabama) judge was asked to grant him a preliminary injunction that would’ve let him play this season while the lawsuit continues. - The judge denied that injunction, meaning Bediako cannot play for Alabama for the rest of the 2025–26 season while the case unfolds Why This Is a “Win” for the NCAA? This ruling is being called a significant legal victory for the NCAA because: ✔️ The judge agreed Bediako failed to meet key requirements for an injunction, including proving irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of winning his case. ✔️ Without an injunction, the NCAA doesn’t have to let him play while the lawsuit continues, which is exactly what the NCAA argued for. ✔️ It sends a message that courts can uphold NCAA eligibility rules even after athletes have gone pro. Because coaches, lawyers, and policymakers have been watching these eligibility lawsuits closely, this decision could discourage future legal challenges by former pros trying to return to college. What This Means for College Sports? - Eligibility rules are now being tested and upheld: If courts won’t block NCAA rules even for high-profile cases like Bediako’s, it strengthens the NCAA’s hand in future disputes. - Other players might think twice: If someone signs a pro contract and then tries to come back via litigation, this ruling makes it harder to get temporary permission to play. - The broader debate isn’t over: Questions around fairness, international players, and consistency in eligibility rulings are still out there, but this case gives the NCAA some legal momentum.