Photo of Michael S. Lowe

Michael S. Lowe

Subscribe to Michael S. Lowe's Posts

As a seasoned former federal prosecutor in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, Michael provides unique insights and practical guidance to clients facing investigation or prosecution for allegations of fraud and other financial crimes and civil False Claims Act suits. Michael is experienced in the NIL and higher education space. He currently represents an NCAA Division I athletic conference in connection with the settlement of the House antitrust litigation, as well as NIL issues and conference policies and procedures. He also has provided advice to an NCAA Division I university in connection with NIL and has experience with investigations of potential NIL violations. In addition to representing clients in this area, Michael frequently writes, speaks, and presents on cutting-edge NIL issues.

Contact:Read more about Michael S. Lowe

The College Sports Commission (CSC) has circulated a 10-page University Participation Agreement that would dramatically reshape NIL and direct-payment enforcement. The biggest shift: schools would waive their right to challenge CSC rulings in court and funnel all disputes into the arbitration system created by the House settlement. The agreement only takes effect if every school signs.

The College Sports Commission (CSC) has circulated a 10-page University Participation Agreement that would dramatically reshape NIL and direct-payment enforcement. The biggest shift: schools would waive their right to challenge CSC rulings in court and funnel all disputes into the arbitration system created by the House settlement. The agreement only takes effect if every school signs.

Background

The movement to allow student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) continues to sweep across the nation, reshaping amateur athletics from coast to coast. What began as a collegiate phenomenon has steadily made its way into high school athletics, with nearly every state now allowing young athletes to benefit from their NIL in some form.[1]

This week, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed a lawsuit brought by four former University of Michigan football players who claimed they had been deprived of profits derived from use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Judge Terrence G. Berg granted the motion to dismiss filed by defendants NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, and the Big Ten Network, holding that the statute of limitations had run on claims of all four former players.

Background: From the Trial Court to the Appeal

Diego Pavia’s journey to a NCAA Division I starting quarterback position was anything but conventional. After leading his junior college (JUCO) team to a national championship, Pavia transferred to first one, then a second, Division I school. By 2024, Pavia became a breakout star in the SEC, leading his school to a historic win and drawing attention from NFL scouts. He also began receiving lucrative offers tied to his name, image, and likeness, yet his eligibility was in doubt.

Former University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) football player Tatuo Martinson is the latest NCAA athlete to successfully convince a federal district court to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing its “five-year eligibility rule” against a former junior college (JUCO) athlete. Martinson joins Diego Pavia,[1] Jett Elad,[2] Cortez Braham Jr.,[3] and four West Virginia University football players[4] as having prevailed on this issue, in contrast to James Coley Jr.,[5] Jagger Giles,[6] and Jackson Hasz,[7] who had similar efforts rebuffed by the NCAA.

In this episode of Highway to NIL, Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys Cal Stein, Mike Lowe, and Brett Broczkowski delve into the latest guidance from the College Sports Commission (CSC) regarding name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals. They explore the criteria set by the CSC for evaluating NIL deals, including payer association, valid business purpose, and range of compensation. The discussion highlights the implications for associated entities, particularly collectives and boosters, and the potential shift in their roles due to the new guidelines.

A week after the approval of the $2.5 billion class action settlement of House v. NCAA (settlement), the NCAA and defendant conferences (i.e., Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and Southeastern Conference) released a question and answer document (Q&A Guidance) providing guidance on the settlement’s implementation. This post covers insights from some of the Q&A Guidance for Division I membership to consider on the eve of radical collegiate athletic change.