Hi everyone,

Today, we’re turning to Debra Bangert, who wrote here last month about NIL compliance consultants, for a story about high school NIL. Debra is based in Michigan, a state that doesn’t allow high school NIL — but not for lack of legislative action. Her piece looks at the situation in her home state and how it relates to the patchwork of regulations around high school NIL nationwide.

— Joan

What Michigan’s standoff can tell us about high school NIL’s path forward

by Debra Bangert

Michigan remains one of the handful of states that do not yet allow high school athletes to monetize their name, image and likeness. Although the Michigan House passed a bill in late 2023 to change that, the legislation has stalled in committee and hasn’t become law. As a result, Michigan students remain prohibited from entering NIL deals while preserving NCAA athletic eligibility, meaning they face a far different set of opportunities than many high school athletes across the country.

Regulation of high school NIL has evolved into a patchwork, with each state (and D.C.) charting its own approach. With no national precedent, each state must set its own standards, weighing the potential upsides and downsides for young athletes — as well as the possibility that barring high school NIL earnings might constitute a competitive disadvantage.

Michigan isn’t alone in resisting high school NIL. Six other states — Indiana, Ohio, Montana, Wyoming, Alabama and Hawaii — have maintained blanket bans. The justifications vary: Some cite concerns about youth exploitation, others worry about blurring lines between education and commerce, and still others cling to an older vision of amateurism where money has no place in scholastic sports.

What unites these states is not necessarily a shared legal rationale, but a common hesitation: fear of moving too fast without a national guardrail. That hesitancy leaves their athletes at a comparative disadvantage to peers in states with big-time athletics, like Florida, California and now Texas (where NIL is limited to athletes 17 and older). 

Across the country, high school NIL access is shaping college recruiting pipelines. And examining the standoff in Michigan can tell us a lot about the how things could develop among the states still holding out — or waiting for a national precedent. 

For nearly two years, the high school NIL bill in Michigan has been stalled, with lawmakers locked in debate. Primarily, they’re concerned about two things: the Michigan High School Athletic Association’s (MHSAA) pushback and the complex tradeoffs entailed in allowing high school students to profit off their name, image and likeness. 

Throughout the debate, MHSAA has voiced concern about deals that resemble recruitment inducements or collective payments to entire teams. MHSAA leadership has emphasized that NIL agreements must be purely individual and cannot serve as financial incentives tied to school choice or team performance.

At the same time, state senators have questioned whether monetization would distract from the educational mission of schools, arguing that student-athletes should be treated primarily as students rather than as profit generators. “We need to be really careful moving into this, that it seems to me to be a very complex issue,” state Sen. Ed McBroom (R) told CBS. “While I don't think schools — or universities, for that matter — should be able to make all these huge profits off of their athletics programs, off of the kids in particular, I still believe that our schools’ primary mission is education.”

The Michigan bill, if enacted, would explicitly prohibit high school administrators, coaches and booster groups from facilitating deals, serving as agents or offering incentives tied to performance or school enrollment. A central concern driving these restrictions is student mobility. Lawmakers have repeatedly signaled their fear that NIL could become a backdoor recruiting tool, enticing athletes to transfer schools in search of better financial offers or looser oversight. For legislators, curbing any financial incentive tied to school enrollment isn’t just a technical rule — it’s a safeguard against a potential arms race in high school athletics. Parental consent and full disclosure to the MHSAA would be required. Certain deal types would also be banned, including those tied to gambling, adult entertainment, alcohol, weapons and supplements. NIL revenue also would not be permitted to substitute for academic scholarships or financial aid.

Proponents of the bill point out that today’s high school athletes are not just competitors; they’re social media personalities, local brand ambassadors and future college stars. Granting NIL rights empowers them to monetize their hard work and media presence, transforming them into early-stage investments — both personally and financially.

Plus, many student-athletes cannot juggle traditional part-time jobs due to demanding training and competition schedules. NIL offers them a flexible income stream directly tied to their talent and effort. As Detroit-area prospect Lance Stone told lawmakers, it provides an avenue for those who typically cannot work after school or on weekends to still earn income from their dedication.

Michigan could also see a major home-state advantage if it were to enact the bill into law. States that already allow high school NIL — such as California, the first state to adopt these rules, and Missouri, one of the early movers in the Midwest — have shown how policy can help keep top talent from leaving. Both states acted to stem “brain drain,” ensuring elite athletes didn’t transfer to schools in jurisdictions with more permissive rules. Michigan faces the same risk. Legalizing high school NIL here could similarly retain homegrown athletes — and their emerging brands — strengthening both the state’s sports identity and its economic ecosystem.

Of course, there are risks, too. Critics fear that NIL deals could exploit minors or pressure families into deals, particularly in industries not adequately regulated. That motivates the detailed restrictions in the Michigan bill. And any deal tied implicitly to school decisions may violate amateur eligibility. 

Michigan isn’t the only state reviewing its policies. Both Montana and Wyoming have taken steps toward approval, but a bigger question looms: Can this national patchwork hold? At the college level, the NCAA has already learned how unstable a fractured NIL landscape can be; lawsuits, state-to-state disparities, and calls for federal intervention continue to dominate headlines. High school athletics may be heading down the same path. Without a baseline national standard, we risk a two-tiered system where athletes’ opportunities hinge less on their talent than on their zip code.

Allowing NIL for high school athletes in Michigan and other holdout states would be more than a technical change. It would symbolize a recognition that young athletes are not just students, but also participants in an economy built on their images, performances, and dedication. Guardrails are necessary, yes: parental oversight, prohibited industries, and transparency in contracts protect against abuse. But outright prohibition increasingly looks like a refusal to engage with reality.

The stakes may be modest in immediate dollar terms, but symbolically they are significant. States like Michigan must now decide whether to preserve an outdated vision of amateurism — or to join the majority in acknowledging that NIL is no longer a future question, but a present reality.