NIL law in California — the Fair Pay to Play Act and what it actually allows
State: California (CA)
California started the modern NIL era. SB 206 — the "Fair Pay to Play Act" — was the first state law in the country to let college athletes earn compensation from their name, image, and likeness, and the framework was extended by SB 26 in 2021. This is what the statute permits, what it does not, and where individual California schools have layered additional rules on top.
Statute citation
Fair Pay to Play Act
SB 206 (2019) / SB 26 (2021) — Cal. Educ. Code § 67456
Enacted 2019 — effective 2021-09-01
Prohibits California postsecondary institutions and athletic associations from preventing student-athletes from earning compensation for the use of their name, image, or likeness, and from preventing them from obtaining professional representation.
Read the statute on the official sourceWhat the law actually says
California's Fair Pay to Play Act was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2019 and was the first state NIL statute in the country. It applied to four-year postsecondary institutions in California and became operative on September 1, 2021. SB 26 (2021) accelerated and clarified the framework, and the relevant provisions are codified at California Education Code section 67456. The statute does not let schools pay athletes directly for NIL; instead, it stops schools and the NCAA from punishing an athlete for accepting NIL compensation from a third party. It also blocks schools from interfering with an athlete's choice to hire an agent or attorney for NIL representation. The law explicitly preserves the school's right to set conduct standards and to regulate use of school marks.
Allowed NIL activities
- Endorsement contracts with brands for advertising, social posts, and appearances.
- Group licensing where an athlete is part of a class (jerseys, video games) — subject to NCAA rules and school marks restrictions.
- Autograph signings, memorabilia sales, and personal appearances.
- Camps, clinics, and private lessons run by the athlete.
- Hiring a sports agent or an attorney for NIL representation, without losing eligibility.
Restricted or prohibited NIL activities
- Using a school's marks, logos, or uniform without an explicit license from the school.
- Endorsements that conflict with a team contract that pre-dates the athlete's deal.
- Activities that violate the school's codified conduct standards (which the statute expressly preserves).
- NIL deals that are structured as recruiting inducements — California's framework does not override NCAA recruiting rules.
- Compensation tied to athletic performance in a way that converts NIL into pay-for-play under the school's interpretation.
How individual schools layer their own policies
California's statute sets the floor, not the ceiling. Each school in the state writes its own NIL policy on top — disclosure windows, prohibited categories, and use of school marks vary by institution. The result is that two California athletes signing the same brand deal can have meaningfully different compliance obligations depending on whether they play at a Pac-12 / Big Ten member, a Mountain West school, or a Cal State campus.
UCLA
Athletes are expected to disclose NIL agreements through the school's designated reporting platform and to avoid endorsements that would conflict with team or conference sponsors. The school maintains its own list of categories that fall outside its NIL approval framework.
Stanford
As a private institution, Stanford layers conduct-policy and academic-integrity restrictions on NIL deals, and it actively reviews use of school IP. Athletes must clear use of Stanford marks separately from the brand contract itself.
How RevU covers California
RevU's analysis treats California contracts the way California schools do: the state floor is set by the statute, but the binding compliance work is at the school level. RevU flags clauses that touch California-school disclosure windows, school-mark use, and exclusivity scopes that would foreseeably conflict with team sponsors. The output is structured so an agent or attorney can hand it to a California compliance office with the right clauses already pulled. See /methodology for how the engine is grounded.
RevU is a software tool, not a law firm. The output is meant to make the conversation with your attorney more efficient — not to replace it. For binding legal advice on a California NIL contract, engage a licensed attorney in your state.