SB 1584 would amend Florida law governing contracts between student athletes and their agents. The bill limits how much an agent may receive from a student athlete’s name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, capping the agent’s share at 25% of the athlete’s total compensation from endorsement deals, promotional activities, or other NIL opportunities. It also adds a new licensing requirement for agents who represent high school student athletes, requiring those agents to be licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR).
The bill directs DBPR to list licensed high school student athlete agents in its licensing portal and authorizes the department to adopt rules to carry out the new requirements. The measure would take effect July 1, 2025, and would modify section 468.454, Florida Statutes, which addresses contracts involving athlete agents.
Impact
The bill would change Florida’s athlete-agent regulatory framework by imposing a statutory cap on agent compensation tied to student-athlete NIL earnings and by extending licensing oversight to agents of high school student athletes. It would affect athlete agents, student athletes, and potentially schools and families involved in NIL arrangements, while giving DBPR additional administrative responsibilities related to licensure, public listing, and rulemaking. The amendment would directly alter s. 468.454, F.S., and create a new compliance requirement for agents working with high school athletes.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded debate or vote history to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a regulatory approach aimed at protecting student athletes and increasing oversight of NIL representation, rather than expanding agent discretion.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the 25% cap on agent compensation and the new licensing requirement for agents representing high school student athletes. Supporters would likely view these provisions as consumer-protection measures that limit excessive fees and improve oversight, while opponents may argue that the cap restricts market terms, reduces agent earnings, or adds regulatory burdens for those representing younger athletes. Because no committee discussion or votes are available, specific lawmakers or stakeholder positions cannot be identified.