Athlete Representation and Compensation:
HB 981 creates a Florida framework for high school student-athlete name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation and related representation. It authorizes high school athletes to earn compensation for use of their NIL, but requires written parental permission for students under 18. The bill also bars NIL activity involving adult entertainment, alcohol, tobacco, vaping, nicotine products, controlled substances, prescription drugs, gambling, weapons, firearms, ammunition, and NIL collectives. It further limits athlete-agent contracts so that, beginning July 1, 2025, an agent may not receive more than 5% of a student athlete’s total compensation from a NIL collective contract.
The bill would amend Florida’s athlete-agent law and K-12 athletics statutes, creating new section 1006.206 and modifying section 1006.20, Florida Statutes. It would prohibit FHSAA bylaws from requiring student athletes to register compensation with the FHSAA, a member school, or any other entity, and would impose new school responsibilities such as maintaining a list of registered advisors and encouraging NIL, financial literacy, and contract education. It also defines and regulates NIL collectives, while allowing school-sanctioned team fundraising to remain outside that definition. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so the available legislative history does not show detailed debate or roll-call support. Based on the bill text, the measure appears generally supportive of student-athlete NIL opportunities while adding guardrails for minors, school oversight, and agent compensation. Its death in the Commerce Committee suggests it did not advance, but the available record does not indicate whether opposition was substantive, procedural, or due to competing policy priorities.
The main points of contention are likely to have been the scope of permissible NIL activity for high school athletes, the parental-consent requirement for minors, and the restrictions on NIL collectives and agent fees. The bill’s prohibition on certain categories of endorsements and its treatment of collectives as off-limits for student athletes could draw concern from NIL advocates and industry participants, while the 5% cap on agent compensation may be viewed as protective by some and overly restrictive by others. School and FHSAA oversight provisions may also be debated because they limit registration requirements yet impose new administrative duties and advisor-notification rules.