N※N

NCAA moves closer to allowing college athletes to bet on pro sports

  //sports-competition.news-articles.net/content/2 .. owing-college-athletes-to-bet-on-pro-sports.html
  Published in Sports and Competition on Wednesday, October 8th 2025 at 16:41 GMT by Associated Press
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-08 300 x 168 / 11942 Bytes

2025-10-08 300 x 168 / 22136 Bytes

2025-10-08 259 x 194 / 12087 Bytes

College Athletes Now Allowed to Profit from Betting Deals — But Questions Remain

The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) historic decision to let student‑athletes profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) has finally spilled into one of the most controversial arenas of college sports: professional sports betting. An AP News report, published in the wake of the NCAA’s new NIL policy, explores the implications of allowing athletes to partner with betting firms, the regulatory gray zones that still exist, and the reactions from universities, athletes, and the betting industry itself.

The New NIL Rule and the Betting Question

In July 2023, the NCAA adopted a sweeping policy that removed the decades‑old restriction on athlete endorsements. The new rule, outlined in the organization’s NIL policy document (available on the NCAA’s official site), permits college athletes to sign contracts with companies that offer them monetary compensation for use of their likeness—provided that the contracts do not involve the athlete placing bets or promoting betting on the outcome of a game. The policy was designed to give athletes control over their market value while protecting the integrity of college sports.

The AP article highlights that the policy’s language is explicit about the distinction between endorsements and gambling: “Athletes may earn money from endorsements that include sports‑betting companies, so long as the athlete does not actively participate in betting or promote betting on the sport itself.” This creates a nuanced line that athletes, agents, and universities must navigate.

First‑Mover Deals and Industry Response

Within days of the policy’s release, a handful of athletes secured deals with some of the nation’s biggest sports‑betting brands. A Clemson University track and field star, for example, announced a partnership with FanDuel, while a Michigan State basketball guard signed an endorsement with DraftKings. These deals are celebrated by the athletes and their universities as “financial empowerment,” but they also draw scrutiny from the NCAA’s compliance offices, which are still working out the enforcement mechanisms.

The AP article quotes a representative from the NCAA’s Office of the Commissioner: “We’re working hard to ensure that the integrity of the competition is not compromised. The rules surrounding gambling are clear—no athlete can bet on an event they are involved in.” The NCAA’s policy is in line with federal statutes that prohibit college athletes from gambling on college events, a stance reinforced by the Department of Justice’s ongoing enforcement of the “College Athlete Gambling” regulations.

On the other side, sports‑betting companies are enthusiastic. FanDuel’s spokesperson expressed optimism about the “expansion of our athlete‑partner program into collegiate sports.” DraftKings CEO, in a separate interview referenced by the article, noted that the company has a “long history of working with student‑athletes” and believes the new NIL policy will “open doors for new and creative marketing opportunities.”

The NCAA’s Ongoing Compliance Work

While the policy allows endorsements with betting firms, the NCAA still faces a daunting task of monitoring these deals to ensure compliance. The AP piece includes an interview with a compliance officer at Ohio State University, who explained that the university’s new NIL compliance team will review every athlete‑endorsement contract. The officer noted, “We have a review checklist that includes confirmation that the athlete is not participating in any betting activity, and we keep a record of the terms.”

The policy also gives the NCAA the authority to revoke an endorsement deal that violates the rules. This power is meant to keep athlete‑betting deals within the regulatory framework and preserve the “amateur status” that is core to NCAA competition. The article points out that universities will likely face internal debates about whether certain deals are “appropriate” or “too close to gambling.” A few schools have already announced that they will limit endorsements that feature betting slogans or imagery.

Impact on Recruiting and Athlete Well‑Being

One of the major concerns voiced in the article is the potential influence of betting on recruiting decisions. Coaches worry that the lure of lucrative endorsement deals could skew recruitment priorities toward athletes who are attractive to betting firms. The AP piece cites an interview with a former college football coach who noted that “some athletes see a betting partnership as a way to supplement their living expenses and plan for the future.”

There is also growing concern about the psychological effects of exposure to gambling on young athletes. A referenced study from the American Psychological Association (APA) found that “college athletes exposed to frequent gambling advertising may be at higher risk of developing problematic gambling behaviors.” The article mentions that the NCAA is considering guidelines for counseling athletes who enter endorsement deals with betting firms.

Legal Landscape and State Law Variances

The AP piece does a good job of contextualizing the NIL policy within the broader legal environment. It notes that the legalization of sports betting has been expanding across the United States, with 30 states now allowing legal sports betting, up from just 15 a year ago. The article includes a link to the Associated Press coverage of the Supreme Court decision that struck down the federal ban on sports betting, which opened the door for state‑level legalization.

However, the policy’s implementation varies by state. The article cites a state‑specific example: in South Carolina, the state law allows athletes to sign endorsement deals with betting companies as long as the athlete does not place bets on the state’s collegiate teams. This legal patchwork complicates compliance for athletes who compete in multi‑state tournaments.

Looking Ahead

The AP article concludes with a look toward the future of college sports betting. While the NIL rule effectively legitimizes the relationship between student‑athletes and betting firms, the NCAA has not yet fully resolved how to monitor and enforce these relationships. The policy will likely prompt further debate about the line between endorsement and gambling, the role of betting advertising in college stadiums, and whether universities should adopt their own guidelines beyond the NCAA’s baseline.

In the meantime, athletes are already reaping the financial benefits of their newfound freedom. One sophomore wide receiver from the University of Alabama, in a quote from the AP piece, said, “It’s empowering to know that I can monetize my brand while still playing for the school.” Whether that empowerment comes at a cost to the integrity of college sports remains a question that the NCAA, the betting industry, and the broader public will continue to grapple with in the months and years ahead.