Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The landscape of collegiate athletics underwent a seismic shift when the NCAA opened the door to name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation in 2021. Student-athletes now can monetize their personal brands through endorsement deals, social media sponsorships and merchandise sales. However, this newfound freedom comes with significant constraints, particularly regarding what athletes can wear and display during competition.
NCAA Bylaw 22.4 stands as one of the most technical — and frequently misunderstood — regulations governing the intersection of commercial interests and game-day appearance. For athletes negotiating NIL agreements that involve wearing branded apparel or equipment during competition, and for intellectual property practitioners advising these athletes or brands, understanding these rules is essential to maintaining NCAA eligibility while maximizing commercial opportunities.
The bylaw, titled “Advertisements, Trademarks, and Promotional References,” establishes strict parameters for commercial markings on athletic apparel and equipment, creating a tiered system that prioritizes team uniformity and the amateur nature of collegiate competition. The fundamental philosophy underlying Bylaw 22.4 is straightforward: Student-athletes represent their institutions during competition, not commercial sponsors. The rule permits limited manufacturer identification while prohibiting overt advertising that would transform athletes into mobile billboards.
Manufacturer vs. non-manufacturer marks
The bylaw creates a critical distinction between manufacturer’s marks — logos or trademarks identifying the company that produced the apparel or equipment — and non-manufacturer marks, which include any other commercial identification from sponsors, licensees, or promotional partners who did not manufacture the item. Manufacturer marks receive more generous treatment, while non-manufacturer marks face severe restrictions, a distinction with profound implications for NIL deals.
The ‘institutional exception’ and team contracts
A critical element often overlooked in NIL negotiations is the institutional equipment contract. Most NCAA institutions have exclusive agreements with major athletic apparel manufacturers — Nike, Adidas, Under Armour or regional providers — that typically require uniformity in team appearance during competition. Even if Bylaw 22.4 would technically permit an athlete to wear a particular branded item, the institutional contract may prohibit it, creating a controlling principle that student-athletes must navigate carefully.
The hierarchy of control operates as follows: first, the institutional team contract establishes the official team provider; second, NCAA Bylaw 22.4 sets the maximum permissible markings; and third, any NIL agreement must operate within the constraints of both the institutional contract and the NCAA bylaw. An athlete cannot unilaterally choose to wear a different manufacturer’s shoes during a game simply because they have an NIL deal with that manufacturer, if doing so would violate team uniformity requirements or institutional contracts.
This framework means that the athlete’s commercial freedom during competition is subordinate to both NCAA rules and their institution’s contractual obligations, requiring careful coordination between the athlete, their representatives, institutional compliance officers and potential brand partners before any NIL agreement involving game-day apparel or equipment is finalized.
Practical implications for NIL agreements
When negotiating NIL agreements involving apparel or equipment use, athletes and their representatives must first verify institutional contracts before signing any deal requiring wearing specific brands during competition. This verification process requires confirming who the institution’s official athletic apparel provider is, understanding the terms of that contract regarding individual athlete exceptions and determining whether the institution permits any flexibility for individual athletes to make personal choices within or outside the team contract parameters.
Athletes should recognize that their institution’s compliance office is an essential partner in this process, not an adversary, and that transparency about potential deals before signing protects everyone involved. Without this preliminary verification, an athlete risks signing an NIL agreement they cannot fulfill without violating NCAA rules or institutional policy, potentially leading to contract disputes, lost opportunities or, worse, eligibility violations that could end their collegiate career.
Distinguish competition from non-competition appearances
The most successful NIL strategies distinguish between competition and non-competition appearances, recognizing that athletes have dramatically different freedoms in different contexts. During competition, athletes are bound by Bylaw 22.4, institutional contracts and team uniformity requirements, meaning their ability to display commercial brands is severely limited.
However, NIL deals can be structured to maximize value through pre-game and post-game appearances where athletes have much greater freedom in what they wear, practice gear which may fall outside institutional contracts depending on the specific agreement, travel attire that is often not covered by team uniform requirements and social media content where there are no NCAA restrictions on what athletes wear in promotional content outside competition.
This distinction allows athletes to maintain valuable endorsement relationships and create compelling content for brand partners without running afoul of NCAA regulations. For example, an athlete might arrive at the stadium wearing their personal sponsor’s jacket and shoes, change into institutionally mandated team gear for competition, and then return to their personal sponsor’s apparel for post-game interviews and social media content, thereby providing substantial value to the brand partner while remaining fully compliant.
Conclusion
NCAA Bylaw 22.4 represents a complex intersection of trademark law, athletic regulation and commercial opportunity that defines critical boundaries for athletes seeking to monetize their personal brands in the NIL era. For athletes, the rules require careful navigation of a three-tiered hierarchy where NCAA bylaws establish maximum permissible commercial markings, institutional contracts may impose even stricter requirements, and team uniformity principles may further limit individual choice during competition.
Understanding these constraints should not discourage athletes from pursuing NIL opportunities but rather guide them toward structuring deals that maximize value in contexts where they have full autonomy: social media content creation, personal appearances, training documentation and lifestyle branding that showcases their authentic preparation and daily routines.
For trademark owners and intellectual property practitioners advising brands or athletes, Bylaw 22.4 creates both constraints and creative opportunities that require a fundamental shift from traditional athletic endorsement models. The limited visibility available during competition means that brands must focus on authenticity over logo exposure, on building long-term relationships rather than pursuing maximum immediate visibility, and on leveraging the unique storytelling opportunities that collegiate athletes can provide through behind-the-scenes content and genuine product integration into their training and preparation routines.
The most successful NIL agreements are those that recognize realistic constraints from the outset, include clear compliance language acknowledging that competition obligations are subject to institutional approval, build in flexibility for alternative performance obligations if competition display proves impossible, and protect both parties through careful documentation of all compliance approvals and institutional permissions.•
__________
Astin and Nevill are partners with Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner LLP.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.