ACC team's NIL provision could punish athletes for others' disclosure of deals

One ACC school reportedly includes a term in its NIL deals which could jeopardize player earnings significantly.

CJ Bailey of NC State prepares to throw. Bailey is one of the athletes subject to an unusual contractual clause regarding NIL. | Nathan Ray Seebeck-Imagn Images

The NIL era of college athletes is constantly changing and evolving. Sometimes, the terms of NIL situations change based on new understandings, and sometimes, they change because existing terms simply aren't sustainable.

One critic of the NIL contracts at North Carolina State has raised a substantial issue. Attorney Darren Heitner, as shared by Sports Business Journal. raised a substantial NIL issue about the Wolfpack in a recent social media post.

Heitner noted that in reviewing NC State's NIL agreement, he was concerned by a provision under which "athletes are liability for confidentiality breaches by the own reps" including parents, agents, and attorneys. More specifically, under the provision, athletes could lose up to 50% of payment if terms are disclosed. This provision exists despite, as Heitner notes, athletes having "no control over third parties."

Heitner concluded his analysis by noting, "Universities shouldn't be drafting one-sided provisions that penalize students for others' actions."'

Noticed a troubling provision in NC State #NIL agreement. Athletes are liable for confidentiality breaches by their own reps (parents, agents, attorneys). Athlete can lose 50% of payment if terms are disclosed despite having no control over third parties. Universities shouldn’t…

— Darren Heitner (@heitner) December 25, 2025

The veil of secrecy around NIL is very clear and obvious. It is perhaps unsuprising that the players themselves are contractually barred from discussing terms of NIL arrangements. After all, student-athletes have not broadly been allowed to unionize and there's doubtlessly some concern among schools that if moe information is freely available, athletes will play schools off of each other on the respective deals.

But the potential to hold athletes fiscally responsible for disclosures by third parties is an unusual provision. Given the two-way relationship between athletes and agents, that particularly issue might even be plausible. Buf saying that if an athlete's parents reveal some aspects of an NIL deal, the athlete might forfeit half of the slated pay is indeed a confusingly draconian proposal.

This is particularly interesting in light of the House requirement that athletes are required to disclose NIL deals that have a value exceeding $600. Based on the House case, athletes are required to disclose deals even if the deals otherwise would be subject to non-disclosure language. Accordingly, the mandated legal requirements on athletes could already run afoul of non-disclosure provisions, which would seem to further make NC State's penalty for disclosure even more questionable.

Advocates of NIL revision consistently suggest that a single binding framework will help overcome inconsistent issues across various states and schools. Apparently, one of the issues that might be legislated is this potential responsibility against an athlete for third-party disclosure.