Columbus — Ohio lawmakers are locked in a very 2020s fight over whether middle and high school athletes should be able to cash in on name, image and likeness deals. Two competing Republican bills in the state House pull in opposite directions: one would effectively shut down most K–12 NIL activity, the other would let students sign carefully limited contracts. The tug-of-war has landed in the House Education Committee and dropped Ohio squarely into a national argument about minors, money and school sports.
Two Bills, Two Very Different Playbooks
House Bill 661, introduced in late January, would bar students in grades 7–12 from receiving compensation tied to their roster spot and could make them ineligible in that sport if they take the money anyway. The bill, sponsored by Reps. Adam Bird and Mike Odioso, is pitched by supporters as a way to keep school athletics focused on education instead of turning into a mini free agency market. Lawmakers have already held multiple hearings on the proposal, according to Spectrum News 1.
Let Them Sign, But With Guardrails
House Bill 745, from Reps. Tex Fischer and Phil Plummer, heads in the opposite direction. It would allow high school NIL deals under tight restrictions that include parental consent, caps on recruitment-related incentives, bans on performance-based pay and requirements that compensation reflect fair market value. Supporters argue that a clear statute can prevent confusion, keep modest opportunities in state and still protect students from being taken for a ride, as reported by the Ohio Capital Journal. Sponsors highlight transparency, written contracts and rules that bar the use of school logos or routing money directly to teams.
OHSAA Numbers And Current Safeguards
The Ohio High School Athletic Association opened the door last fall for member schools to adopt NIL policies, but very few students have walked through it so far. Testimony to the House Education Committee pegged the number at just 32 agreements among roughly 350,000 OHSAA student athletes. Most of those early deals have reportedly been small, ranging from product promotions to commission-based social media posts, with pay-for-play still off limits and disclosure required, according to House committee testimony and the OHSAA. The association’s own NIL materials stress an education-first philosophy and spell out reporting requirements for schools.
Local Pushback, Local Cheers
Some local leaders are not thrilled about a blanket NIL shutdown. Cleveland City Council passed a resolution opposing legislation that would strip NIL opportunities from students, arguing that Ohio should stay competitive for emerging talent, according to Cleveland 19. On the other side, coaches and school officials have told lawmakers the shift has been too fast and full of gray zones where families or boosters could game the system. Lakota East football coach Jon Kitna testified that he worries the change opened doors to exploitation, per WCPO. The divided local reaction neatly reflects the broader statewide split.
Legal Pressure In The Background
All of this is unfolding against a legal backdrop that sped things up. A Franklin County judge issued a temporary order in October that allowed high school athletes to pursue NIL deals while a lawsuit plays out, according to the AP. Similar rulings in other states have forced athletic associations and lawmakers to choose between relying on internal bylaws or writing new state laws. That uncertainty is one reason both camps agree on at least one thing: more hearings and clearer rules are needed.
What Lawmakers Do Next
The House Education Committee has already held multiple hearings and is set to reconvene when the chamber returns in May, giving sponsors time to tweak bill language and round up more testimony, the Ohio Capital Journal reports. At some point, lawmakers will have to pick a lane: lock down NIL for young athletes, or carve out a regulated path that leaves limited earning opportunities on the table for Ohio teens.
