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 enacted similar legislation three months ago.
Main Body
The proposal, designated as the Personal Branding Activity (PBA) measure, outlines specific conditions under which athletes may monetize their NIL. Athletes would be prohibited from depicting any affiliation with a member school or using school facilities or property in connection with compensation. Permitted activities include providing instruction services, making appearances or demonstrations, and offering private training or coaching, provided these are not associated with a member school. Athletes must notify their school athletic director within 48 hours of entering a PBA agreement; schools may review agreements for compliance but cannot prohibit compliant activities. The use of collectives—a mechanism common in collegiate athletics where booster-funded entities aggregate NIL deals—would be strictly forbidden. Commissioner Paul Neidig conducted eight statewide meetings over the preceding two weeks to discuss the proposal. Straw polls indicated approximately half of the principals and athletic directors in attendance expressed support; at a session in Plainfield, 24 of 51 votes were in favor. Neidig characterized the proposal as consistent with the existing amateur rule, noting that individuals inherently own their name and likeness. He expressed concern that collectives could exacerbate disparities between affluent and less-resourced schools, stating that such structures have the potential to create an unprecedented separation in education-based athletics. The impetus for the proposal differs from the legislative pressure that compelled the IHSAA to adopt a one-time transfer rule the previous spring. In contrast, Ohio’s state association enacted an emergency referendum in November after a lawsuit filed by a parent claimed her son lost over $100,000 in potential NIL earnings due to the state’s prohibition. Currently, Alabama, Hawaii, and Mississippi remain the only states that do not allow high school athletes to profit from NIL. Neidig distinguished the high school NIL framework from the collegiate model, asserting that the latter has evolved into a system of performance-based payments using university funds, whereas the proposed policy is rooted in the principle that individuals may monetize their own identity without school endorsement.
Conclusion
The IHSAA board’s decision on May 4 will determine whether Indiana joins the majority of states permitting high school athletes to earn income from their personal brand, subject to restrictions designed to preserve amateurism and prevent commercial exploitation of school affiliations.