Congress is considering a cap on #NIL agent fees at 5%. It's a "fix" for the wrong problem. Fix who's allowed to operate, and the fee fight mostly solves itself. linkedin.com/pulse/newslette…

Assuming these rulings from the District of Colorado on the Class of 2022 getting an extra year of eligibility stick, what does it mean for athletes who have signed pro contracts, received benefits from an agent, and/or were drafted? The decision doesn't touch the NCAA's separate rules. So, an athlete could have his/her 5th season restored and still be barred from playing. The NCAA will likely take a firm position that an athlete loses eligibility if he signs a contract or commitment of any kind to play professionally in that sport. The NCAA would probably also be concerned if, for instance, the athlete received benefits from an agent beyond permitted representation, although that may not result in permanent ineligibility. Being drafted, standing alone, shouldn't be grounds to void eligibility (yet, it may give the pro team that drafted the player certain rights that need to be analyzed). But if a contract was signed or money exchanged, that changes the calculation. The biggest problem for athletes and their agents is that the decision is silent on these issues. As such, tread with caution. Conduct as much diligence as possible on the NCAA rules. Consult with the applicable players' association. Proceed with an understanding that the Colorado class action rulings may not withstand appellate challenges.

LIFT Sports Management dominated the 2026 NBA Draft, securing 5 first-round picks (more than any other agency). Nate Ament, Ebuka Okorie, Labaron Philon Jr., Jayden Quaintance, and Joshua Jefferson. From landing Paolo Banchero to building this class in a few short years, a boutique agency is giving fight to the big boys.

2 days ago, the NFLPA and NBPA said they support the Protect College Sports Act. Today, through the AFL-CIO, the unions say the bill silences college athletes' voices on the job, undermines their right to collective bargaining, jeopardizes fair compensation, and stops states from passing laws that would protect and advance their rights. That's a big change within 48 hours.. xitter.cf/achristovichh/status/2…

The United Steelworkers and NFLPA aren’t used to taking differing positions on legislative agendas. Then again, neither the NFLPA nor any union should ever be supporting any bill that doesn’t protect the best interests of athletes (the labor). Wild times..

This is shocking to me. Players unions supporting legislation that would diminish athletes’ rights and cap their earning power. I note neither the MLBPA nor NHLPA joined. Really bad look for the NFLPA and NBPA.

Nick Saban testified that you don't need to be licensed to represent college athletes. He's wrong. The majority of states maintain mandatory registration of anyone who recruits, solicits, or represents athletes, including in connection with #NIL. Additionally, the federal Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA) imposes nationwide disclosure obligations whenever an agent enters or attempts to enter a contract with athletes. The FTC is supposed to enforce that law. Could the system be better? Sure. Pro players' associations regulate athlete agents. But that requires unionization.

The federal government doesn’t cap fees for talent agents, real estate agents, pro athlete agents, or any agent at all that I’m aware of. Why should Cruz and Cantwell be involved in setting a ceiling on what agents charge college athletes? Unions set caps, not Congress.

I serve as legal counsel for many agents. Let me explain why the 5% agent cap in the Cruz-Cantwell Protect College Sports Act is bad policy. It's a price control that fails to distinguish between lower-effort school or collective agreements and the far more labor-intensive work required to source, negotiate, and service genuine third-party brand deals. Most true #NIL endorsement opportunities are modest in value. At 5%, an agent's compensation on an $8k deal would be $400. After accounting for the time spent identifying the opportunity, conducting due diligence on the brand, negotiating the terms, and providing ongoing fulfillment support, that figure doesn't come close to covering legitimate overhead or rewarding the expertise that separates competent representation from amateur efforts. Agents who specialize in this space routinely operate at commission rates between 10-20% on brand deals because the work is closer to traditional talent or entertainment representation than to the union-capped commissions on multimillion-dollar pro player contracts. A flat statutory ceiling also interferes with the freedom of contract that should govern the relationship between the athlete and advisor of his/her choice. If a high-profile QB with significant national-market potential wants to pay a premium for an agent who can deliver blue-chip corporate partnerships and manage a personal brand across multiple platforms, the market (not Congress) should set that price. The cap risks driving experienced agents out of the NIL space altogether, leaving athletes to either go unrepresented or turn to less reputable operators who may skirt the rules. Registration, mandatory disclosure of all material terms, fiduciary standards, and a robust private right of action against fraudulent conduct are legitimate tools for preventing exploitation. But the % cap misses the mark.

After a lot of back and forth with the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) seeking clear guidance on its own bylaws governing agent representation in NIL matters, the responses I have received reveal a troubling disconnect between the actual text of the rules and the organization’s enforcement position. The operative provision is Bylaw 9.9.2. It lists activities that “may impact a student-athlete’s amateur status,” including “signing a professional playing contract in any sport or hiring a registered agent to manage his/her athletic career, other than for the purpose of advising on NIL related matters.” The carve-out is clear. Yet FHSAA counsel has now taken the position that the phrase “advising on NIL matters” does not extend to an agent who actively identifies, solicits, pitches to, or negotiates with third parties on behalf of a high school athlete. In other words, the very work an agent performs to secure NIL opportunities — the work necessary to actually advise a young athlete on what those opportunities even are — falls outside the exception. They have further justified this view by stating that, before NIL existed, agents were “not allowed anywhere near high school student athletes,” and that the bylaw creates only a “very narrow exception” intended merely to let athletes and parents “understand NIL, nothing further.” That is not what the bylaw says. The bylaw does not limit the exception to passive review of already-presented contracts. It does not say “advising on NIL” means only explaining terms after a deal magically appears on the table. It draws a line at managing an athletic career except when the agent is advising on NIL-related matters. Negotiating the terms of an NIL agreement is the quintessential form of that advice. The FHSAA has also confirmed there is no separate published definition of “agent,” no interpretive memoranda, no unpublished enforcement guidelines, and no prior eligibility rulings that further explain this line. The entire restrictive policy rests on an unwritten narrowing of a bylaw that, on its face, appears to permit legitimate NIL counsel. Why is this important? Because high schools are telling athletes that they can't sign with agents. They're being told that if they retain experienced representation to shop and negotiate legitimate, compliant NIL deals, they could still face escalating penalties under the bylaws FHSAA itself cites, which are penalties that could cost the athlete his or her eligibility. All because the governing body has quietly decided that the words it wrote do not mean what they say. High school athletes in the NIL era deserve clear, transparent rules that match the actual text of the bylaws, not after-the-fact interpretations that shrink the only exception the organization ever made. If the FHSAA believes agents should have no substantive role in NIL whatsoever, it should amend its bylaws through the proper public process instead of enforcing a narrower rule that exists only in private correspondence. Florida’s athletes and the families and professionals trying to guide them through a complex new landscape are entitled to better.