LUIS FERRO—In the ever-evolving world of college sports, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) has traditionally stood as the unchallenged authority—setting the rules of the game both on and off the field. Yet, the introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness rights (“NIL”) marked a monumental shift. For the first time, student-athletes were granted the ability to monetize their personal brands. In response, states, led by California in 2019, began crafting their own NIL legislation. This evolution posed a pivotal question: What happens when NCAA regulations conflict with state laws? Tennessee’s Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti, recently sparked this debate with his letter to the NCAA.
Over a three-year span, the University of Tennessee football program committed a series of infractions.As the NCAA deliberated on the appropriate sanctions for the university, one of the most daunting was the potential ban from bowl games – a pivotal event in the college football calendar, crucial for revenue for the institution and national spotlight for the student-athletes. However, this looming ban drew the attention of a certain legal figurehead: Tennessee’s Attorney General, Jonathon Skremetti.
Skremetti, in a proactive stance, sent a warning to the NCAA’s Vice President of Legal Affairs. His message was clear: any attempt by the NCAA to impose a bowl ban on the football program may be met with legal action, grounded in Tennessee’s NIL state laws. He emphasized, “NCAA rules cannot supersede Tennessee law.” Drawing upon Tennessee’s NIL statute, Tennessee Code 49-7-2803, Skremetti noted that an athlete’s right to compensation can only be restricted if the athlete has personally violated rules. Given that the alleged violations were tied to a coach who was fired in 2021, and the current roster of players was not involved, Skremtti argued that imposing a bowl game would undermine these players’ right to earn compensation without them being at fault.
On July 14, 2023, the NCAA released its decision regarding the penalties imposed on the football program for its actions. The university was placed on probation, required to vacate wins, and faced scholarship reductions, among other penalties. Most notably, however, the University of Tennessee avoided a bowl ban.
While the influence of Skremetti’s letter on the NCAA’s decision remains speculative, it undoubtedly highlights shifting power dynamics between the NCAA and individual states. The age-old practice of penalizing student-athletes for violations they did not commit, especially by denying football programs their bowl games, appears to be coming to an end. The once all-powerful NCAA now finds itself “looking like a fraction of its former self” as it has allowed individual states to enact legislation to protect student-athletes rights.
As states increasingly adopt NIL legislation, the NCAA finds itself on shaky grounds. In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court provided some insight into its stance in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston. While this ruling specifically tackled education-related payments and steered clear of direct athlete compensation, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion stands out by stating: “the NCAA is not above the law.” This statement echoes Skremetti’s assertion that the NCAA rules cannot supersede state law. As such, if the NCAA’s rules start to clash with those of individual states, states will likely contend their laws should take precedence.
The evolving dynamics in college sports governance are evident. With the emergence of the NIL legislation and the increased advocacy for states on behalf of student-athletes, the NCAA’s once unchallenged dominance is under scrutiny. The actions of Skremetti and the unfolding story around the University of Tennessee may very well be a sign of things to come. The burning question remains: How will the NCAA adjust to this shifting landscape? While the future is uncertain, one thing is clear—the game is changing, both on and off the field.
