Marketing the Amateur Athlete: Why Olympic Rule 40 Restrictions are Unreasonable for NCAA Name, Image, and Likeness Guidelines

24 Wake Forest J. Bus. & Intell. Prop. L. 75.

The student-athlete industry is well known and beloved in the United States. Playing a sport in college can mean an opportunity for students to compete at an elite level while possibly offsetting the ever rising cost of college through scholarships. However, it is not students who reap the biggest benefit from the student-athlete model. From 2005 to 2015, the combined revenue of the five major National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) conferences (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12) increased 266 percent. Additionally, the NCAA’s current broadcast contract for March Madness is worth $1.1 billion annually. These benefits are not felt evenly by all. In 2015, it was reported that 530 football coaching employees from 53 schools made a combined $405.5 million. Meanwhile, the 4,979 football players at their respective schools received only a drop in the bucket, a combined $179.8 million in scholarships.

This disparity felt by athletes in the NCAA has been criticized by many. While coaches, schools, and athletic directors feel the direct financial benefit that comes from the multi-billion-dollar industry that is college sports, student-athletes reap almost nothing except possible tuition coverage. The highlighted issues with the NCAA have some similarities to the conversation surrounding the Olympics. As will be discussed, the current restrictions surrounding the monetization of Olympic athlete images are overbearing and unnecessarily restrictive.

…..