relative to the right of intercollegiate student-athletes to earn compensation through the use of their name, image, or likeness.
HB 312, titled the “New Hampshire Fair Play Act,” creates a new chapter in state law governing compensation for college athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. It prohibits postsecondary educational institutions from blocking student-athletes from earning NIL compensation, from revoking scholarships because an athlete earns NIL income or obtains representation, and from preventing athletes from hiring licensed attorneys or athlete agents. The bill also bars institutions from offering NIL compensation to prospective student-athletes as a recruiting inducement.
The bill sets guardrails around NIL deals by requiring student-athletes to disclose contracts to a designated school official and by prohibiting agreements that conflict with team contracts or with the bill’s restrictions. It also preserves institutional and conference rights to use an athlete’s NIL for advertising and marketing without additional compensation, and it applies to full-time students eligible for intercollegiate competition at accredited four-year institutions. The act would take effect September 1, 2025.
HB 312 would add a new RSA chapter, 356-D, and materially change New Hampshire law by expressly recognizing and regulating college athletes’ ability to profit from NIL use. It would affect colleges and universities, student-athletes, athlete agents, attorneys, and institutions’ athletic departments by setting disclosure, contract, and eligibility rules, while also creating prohibited categories of NIL endorsements tied to adult entertainment, alcohol, gambling, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, controlled substances, and weapons. The bill would also tie violations involving those prohibited categories to loss of institutional financial aid eligibility.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive of expanding student-athlete rights while imposing limits to protect institutional interests and public-policy concerns. The sponsorship pattern suggests bipartisan interest, and the bill’s structure indicates an effort to balance athlete compensation with school oversight and restrictions on certain commercial associations.
The main points of contention are likely to be the scope of permissible NIL activity and the list of prohibited endorsement categories. Supporters may favor the bill’s protections for athletes’ economic rights, access to legal and agent representation, and preservation of scholarships, while opponents or cautious stakeholders may object to the restrictions on deals involving alcohol, gambling, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, controlled substances, and weapons, as well as the requirement that schools disclose conflicts and the ability of institutions and athletic organizations to use athletes’ NIL for marketing without extra pay. Another possible issue is whether the bill’s limits on recruiting-related compensation and its financial-aid penalties are too restrictive or difficult to administer.