College athletics has changed dramatically over the past few years, driven by the debate of student-athletes’ ability to profit from their own name, image, and likeness (“NIL”). The evolution of NIL regulations raises a much broader conversation about whether college athletes are actually employees. This conversation has implications for employers across industries beyond college campuses, which offers a valuable case study of the evolving definition of employment in the modern economy.
The historical model of the amateur college athlete has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. Since 2021, NCAA athletes have been permitted to earn compensation through NIL activities, which include endorsement agreements, social media sponsorships, appearances, and licensing agreements. Most recently, the NCAA reached a settlement agreement in a class-action anti-trust lawsuit brought by an Arizona State University swimmer and Texas Christian University basketball player, who sought an injunction to force the NCAA to lift restrictions on revenue sharing from broadcast rights. As a part of the settlement, the NCAA agreed to allow Division I schools to share athletic revenue directly with student-athletes. As compensation opportunities continue to expand, questions about whether college athletes more resemble employees who provide services to schools that generate billions of dollars in revenue.
The issue has attracted attention from courts, labor agencies, and lawmakers. Advocates for employee status argue familiar legal theories, including that schools exercise substantial control over athletes’ schedules, training requirements, conduct, and outside activities. Participation often demands year-round commitment and helps generate significant revenue through ticket sales, sponsorships, broadcasting agreements, and merchandising.
Opponents argue that athletes primarily attend institutions for educational purposes and receive scholarships, academic opportunities, and developmental benefits rather than traditional wages. They also contend that categorizing student-athletes as employees would fundamentally alter the collegiate model.
This discussion sounds increasingly familiar to employment lawyers. Questions surrounding control, compensation, economic dependency, and the nature of work have long been central to worker-classification disputes involving independent contractors, gig workers, interns, and trainees. Over the last decade, businesses have seen heightened scrutiny regarding worker classification and courts have increasingly focused on the realities of the workplace relationship rather than labels assigned by employers.
The college athletics debate will focus on key themes, including the extent to which an organization controls how work is performed and methods of compensation beyond traditional wages. Whether student-athletes will ultimately gain employee status is unclear, but in the meantime, student athletes are becoming increasingly organized and vocal in their advocacy for compensation and workplace protections. Schools should expect continued activism.
For all employers, the NIL era serves as a reminder that the definition of an “employee” is not static. As business models and compensation structures evolve in all industries, organizations must continue to reassess workforce classifications and the realities of how work is performed. The questions that face universities and their athletic departments are the same questions that employers confront every day.
Marc Sugerman is an attorney in the Orlando office of FordHarrison whose practice focuses on traditional labor and employment law. He represents employers in labor arbitrations, collective bargaining negotiations, unfair labor practice matters, and related proceedings, and also litigates employment disputes while advising employers on workplace compliance and labor relations issues.