Indiana High School Athletic Association to Vote on Proposal Allowing Athlete Name, Image, and Likeness Monetization
Introduction
The Indiana High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) Board of Directors is scheduled to vote on May 4 on a proposal that would permit high school athletes to generate income from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). If approved, Indiana would become the 47th state to adopt such a policy, following Michigan, which passed similar legislation three months ago.
Main Body
The proposal, called the Personal Branding Activity (PBA) measure, sets specific rules for athletes who want to earn money from their NIL. Athletes cannot show any connection to their school or use school property for paid activities. They are allowed to give lessons, make appearances, or offer private coaching, as long as these are not linked to the school. Athletes must tell their school athletic director within 48 hours of signing a PBA agreement. Schools can check the agreements for compliance but cannot stop activities that follow the rules. The use of 'collectives'—groups of supporters that organize NIL deals in college sports—would be completely banned. Commissioner Paul Neidig held eight statewide meetings over the past two weeks to discuss the proposal. Straw polls showed that about half of the principals and athletic directors who attended supported it. For example, at a meeting in Plainfield, 24 out of 51 votes were in favor. Neidig argued that the proposal fits with the existing amateur rule, noting that people naturally own their own name and image. He also warned that collectives could increase the gap between wealthy and poorer schools, saying that such structures could create an unprecedented separation in education-based athletics. The reason for this proposal is different from the legislative pressure that forced the IHSAA to adopt a one-time transfer rule last spring. In contrast, Ohio’s state association passed an emergency rule in November after a parent sued, claiming her son lost over $100,000 in potential NIL earnings because of the state’s ban. Currently, only Alabama, Hawaii, and Mississippi do not allow high school athletes to profit from NIL. Neidig made a clear distinction between the high school NIL framework and the college model. He stated that college NIL has become a system of performance-based payments using university funds, while the proposed policy is based on the idea that individuals can earn money from their own identity without school endorsement.
Conclusion
The IHSAA board’s decision on May 4 will determine whether Indiana joins the majority of states that allow high school athletes to earn income from their personal brand, subject to restrictions designed to protect amateurism and prevent commercial use of school connections.