Overview
Ohio is currently at the center of one of the most significant shifts in name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) rights for high school student-athletes. 
After years of focusing on NIL in college athletics, the most consequential developments are now occurring much earlier in the athletic pipeline, with direct implications for students, schools, and policymakers.
Until recently, Ohio stood as one of the last holdouts in the country, prohibiting high school student-athletes from earning compensation tied to their name, image, and likeness while more than 40 states embraced NIL opportunities in some form. Ohio student-athletes were left behind, effectively denied the same economic rights and opportunities afforded to their peers nationwide.
The Legal Challenge to Ohio’s High School NIL Restrictions
In fall 2025, a nationally ranked high school athlete challenged the Ohio High School Athletic Association’s (“OHSAA”) longstanding prohibition on NIL compensation. The case was rooted in a simple but powerful principle: student-athletes should not be barred from lawful economic opportunities solely because they participate in school sports.
The result was not just theoretical harm—it was immediate and tangible. Athletes were forced to turn down legitimate business opportunities with no ability to recover those losses later.
But the lawsuit was not simply about sports. It was about fairness, economic liberty, and whether Ohio would continue to isolate its student-athletes from the modern economy. This litigation and the broader national pressure surrounding NIL helped accelerate a long-overdue conversation in Ohio. The issue quickly moved beyond the courtroom and into policy debates, culminating in legislative proposals like House Bill 661.
House Bill 661: A Proposed Blanket Rollback Despite National NIL Trends
House Bill 661 seeks to reinstate a categorical ban on high school NIL activity. Specifically, it would prohibit student-athletes from earning compensation connected to their participation in interscholastic athletics and impose eligibility penalties for violations. At first glance, the bill was framed as a protective measure. But prohibition is not protection—it is overcorrection.
One of the most persistent misconceptions in the NIL debate is that allowing high school athletes to earn compensation will lead to recruiting abuses, competitive imbalance, and commercialization of youth sports. But the data tells a different story.
Across the country, the overwhelming majority of states have adopted some form of regulated NIL framework for high school athletes. They typically include guardrails like prohibiting pay-for-play, restricting use of school marks, and banning booster involvement while still allowing athletes to engage in independent entrepreneurial activity.
And the results? There has been no widespread collapse of high school sports.
Even in Ohio, as NIL is currently permitted under OHSAA bylaws (pending the outcome of HB 661), early activity has remained limited. In the first month, only a small number of NIL deals were disclosed—hardly the “wild west” scenario critics predicted. This aligns with what we have seen nationally: high school NIL is not college NIL.
A critical mistake in the policy debate is treating high school NIL as if it mirrors the college landscape. It does not, and the distinction matters. College NIL operates within a multibillion-dollar ecosystem driven by media rights, booster collectives, and institutional branding. High school NIL, by contrast, is typically limited to:
- Social media endorsements,
- Local business partnerships,
- Personal appearances, and
- Individual branding efforts.
These are entrepreneurial activities, not pay-for-play arrangements. High school NIL is better understood as a form of student-driven economic participation. It is no different in principle from a student musician performing paid gigs or a student entrepreneur launching a small business. The only distinction is that the value stems from athletic recognition.
Managing NIL Risks Without Eliminating Opportunity
The issue not whether NIL presents risks—those are inherent in any commercial activity involving minors. The real issue is how those risks should be addressed. A categorical ban, like the one proposed in House Bill 661, is the most extreme option. It eliminates opportunity entirely rather than managing it responsibly.
A better approach, and the one adopted by most states, is regulation: require parental involvement; enforce anti-recruiting rules; and provide education on contracts, taxes, and financial literacy. This approach recognizes the reality that NIL is not going away.
Ohio now stands at a crossroads. The choices made by lawmakers, schools, and governing bodies will determine whether the state remains aligned with national trends or becomes an outlier once again.
What is clear is that the momentum behind NIL is not slowing. It is evolving. And as it does, the role of thoughtful legal frameworks grounded in fairness, education, and practical experience will be more important than ever.
The future of sports is not just about competition; it is about opportunity.
