By Joshua M. Frieser
While name, image, and likeness (NIL) has expanded from collegiate athletics to high school athletics, minors are now regularly parties to NIL agreements. Although NIL contracts can take many forms—sponsorship and endorsement agreements, licensing agreements, and NIL agent agreements, to name a few—a handful of contractual arrangements stand to create unique challenges related to enforceability for minor athletes.
Since the House v. NCAA settlement went into effect, university revenue sharing contracts have become a critical tool for schools recruiting prospective student-athletes. A significant percentage of athletes entering into revenue sharing agreements with universities (especially those negotiating them while still in high school, as opposed to those in the transfer portal) have not yet reached the age of majority in their respective state. In addition to university revenue sharing agreements and collective deals, some high school and college athletes have entered into agreements to trade a percentage of their future NIL earnings in exchange for an upfront, guaranteed payment. Student-athletes also regularly enter into contracts with agents and sponsors that can extend well into their adulthood, sometimes granting long-term intellectual property licenses or ownership to the agent or sponsor.
Under common law principles, an individual must have the requisite capacity to enter a binding contract—something a minor does not gain until they reach the age of majority. In 47 states, the age of majority is 18. In Alabama[10] and Nebraska,[11] the age of majority is 19, while in Mississippi,[12] the age of majority is 21. This impacts most high school athletes and a handful of collegiate student-athletes. Alabama star Wide Receiver Ryan Williams, for example, reclassified from the 2025 recruiting class to the 2024 recruiting class and began playing college football at just 17 years old. Williams did not reach the age of majority in Alabama until February 9, 2026, after completing his sophomore football season. Presumably, he signed a contract to return to Alabama for his junior season—which very well may be his last before declaring for the NFL draft—prior to turning 19 as well during the January 2026 transfer portal window. Williams reportedly earned $1.8 million last year.[13]
Although Williams is an exceptional example given his decision to reclassify and the heightened age of majority in the state of Alabama, his circumstances are not entirely unheard of. Many other student-athletes enter into university revenue sharing agreements before reaching the age of majority. Universities and athletes should closely consider how revenue sharing agreements may be impacted by relevant state laws regarding (1) minor disaffirmance of voidable contracts and (2) impermissible releases, waivers, and terms that parents and guardians cannot agree to on behalf of their minor children.
Voidable Contracts
Generally, when a minor enters into a contract, it is typically considered a voidable contract. A voidable contract is a valid, enforceable contract until one party decides to disaffirm the agreement. When a contract is voidable because it is between a minor and another individual or organization, the minor may void the agreement before they reach the age of majority or within a reasonable amount of time after reaching that age with no legal consequences. If a minor disaffirms a contract, they will not be able to retain the benefit of the transaction which they disaffirm. This means they must return the consideration that remains in their possession after disaffirming the contract. Disaffirmance can be expressed through a clear declaration or through actions that indicate a refusal to comply with the contract. Continued acceptance of benefits after the reaching the age of majority will typically act as ratification of the contract.
If a minor’s parent or guardian signs the contract, the analysis may change, although the greater weight of authority suggests that the minor’s right to disaffirm the contract cannot be overridden. In NYC Management Group, Inc. V. Brown-Miller, the court ruled that “the assent of the father adds nothing to the binding force of an infant’s promise,” suggesting that parental assent is not enough to override the right of the child to disaffirm the contract.[14] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, held that a minor may not disaffirm a contract in certain cases.[15] In that case, a mother signed a contract allowing a magazine company to photograph her child and the child was unable to disaffirm it because the mother exercised her statutory authority to consent to the photograph of her child, as recognized in Cal. Civil Code Section 3344. Still, other courts have ruled that the signature of a parent does not necessarily validate an infant’s contract and that the right to disaffirm contracts is personal to children alone and not shared with the parent.[16]
Moreover, while a parent or guardian can enter into an agreement on behalf of a student-athlete, in some states, a parent cannot waive certain rights on behalf of their minor child. For example, a handful of states will not enforce releases of liability, indemnification clauses, or arbitration clauses that are agreed to by a parent on behalf of the minor. While a certain contract could remain free from disaffirmance by a minor, certain provisions in the agreement may not be enforceable. This is particularly relevant to university revenue sharing contracts, which typically contain broad releases and indemnification clauses.
A minor is unable to dissafirm a contract in a manner that unfairly and inequitably benefits the minor. If the minor disaffirms a contract, they must disaffirm the entire contract as opposed to the “irksome portions,” as the court in Doe v. Epic Games stated in 2020.[17] This means that when a minor disaffirms a contract, that disaffirmance will rescind the entire contract. As a result, minors will be required to return received consideration that remains in his or her possession and continued accepting of benefits could operate as ratification of the contract by the minor. This collective disaffirmance process is sometimes referred to as the infancy doctrine and is in effect to protect the inexperienced minor from being exploited because of their lack of experience and judgment.
NIL Contracts
The infancy doctrine and the rationale behind it impacts high school and collegiate athletes broadly. Particularly, the doctrine can apply to university revenue sharing agreements and NIL collective contracts, athlete-agent agreements, and future income sharing agreements when athletes have not reached the age of majority.
Returning to Ryan Williams, his career and legal status as a minor under Alabama state law is demonstrative. Williams could have disaffirmed his agreement(s) with the University of Alabama or its NIL collective prior to reaching the age of 19. While he likely would have been required to return the consideration he was previously paid under the agreement, he would have been free of the obligations and requirements he had previously promised to the university and/or its collective—this means potentially avoiding a buyout or a liquidated damages clause, releases of liability, indemnification against third-party claims, and arbitration of a dispute between the parties. As the National Letter of Intent process has been replaced by revenue sharing agreements, universities should be cautious about the potential of minor athletes disaffirming these agreements. Moreover, certain terms in revenue sharing agreements, such as releases or arbitration clauses, may be unenforceable, even if an athlete does not disaffirm the agreement before or upon reaching the age of majority.
Likewise, many high school and college athletes have hired professional representation to assist with procuring and negotiating NIL agreements on their behalf. NIL agents typically take a commission on the contracts that athletes enter into, both for traditional sponsorship agreements and university revenue sharing agreements (which serve as a de facto pay-for-play arrangement). While NIL agents are subject to the requirements of the federal Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act and athlete agent laws in most states, NIL representation agreements are not uniform or standardized the way that professional player agent contracts typically are (e.g., the NFLPA’s Standard Representation Agreement or the NBPA’s Standard Player Agent Contract). In other words, agents and athletes have a greater ability to negotiate a variety of terms and provisions within these agreements. It is not uncommon for agents to obtain licenses or rights to an athlete’s NIL in some form. Moreover, because there is no union to certify and regulate agents, these agreements can be for a substantially higher commission percentage (sometimes, up to 30%) than professional player agent contracts typically are. When an athlete enters into an agency agreement before reaching the age of majority, the athlete would have the ability to disaffirm the agreement.
Future income sharing agreements—which have been common in minor league baseball for years—have become common in college athletics since NIL went into effect. One of the first public examples of a dispute related to this type of agreement was between former Florida Gators star Gervon Dexter and Big League Advance.[18] While Dexter was not a minor when he entered into the agreement to trade 15% of his future career earnings in exchange for an upfront cash payment, many of the high school and college athletes that are approached by companies like Big League Advance and NILLY are. Typically, these companies look to get around any potential disaffirmance of their agreements by making payments both before and after the student-athlete has reached the age of majority. However, there may still be issues related to the enforceability of releases and arbitration clauses, even with an athlete ratifying the agreement upon reaching the age of majority and accepting installment payments thereafter.
Conclusion
Navigating the enforceability of contracts involving minor athletes requires consideration of longstanding common law principles and the rapidly evolving landscape of NIL activities. As high school and minor college athletes continue to engage in revenue sharing agreements, NIL agency arrangements, and future income sharing deals, questions of capacity and the scope of a minor’s right to disaffirm remain important. Moreover, even when a minor does not disaffirm an agreement, certain provisions—such as releases, indemnification clauses, and arbitration requirements—remain open to legal challenges and questions regarding enforceability. As NIL continues to serve as a vehicle for recruiting high school and transfer college athletes, universities must cautiously consider the enforceability of their agreements and the opportunites student-athletes may have to disaffirm in the future.
Joshua M. Frieser is a Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based sports lawyer at Frieser Legal (https://frieserlegal.com/meet-josh/). His practice is focused on representing athletes, agents, sponsors, and sports industry businesses.
-
Ala. Code § 26-1-1. ↑
-
Nebraska Revised Statute §43-2101. ↑
-
Miss. Code § 1-3-27. ↑
-
Alex Weber, Alabama Wide Receiver Ryan Williams’ NIL Salary Revealed, Sports Illustrated, (Sept. 9, 2025) www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/alabama-crimson-tide-wide-receiver-ryan-williams-nil-salary-revealed. ↑
-
NYC Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Brown-Miller, 2004 WL 1087784, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2004). ↑
-
Faloona by Fredrickson v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 799 F.2d 1000, 1001 (5th Cir. 1986). ↑
-
Del Bosco v. U.S. Ski Ass’n, 839 F. Supp. 1470, 1473 (D. Colo. 1993); Melendez v. Ethical Culture Fieldston Sch., 789 F. Supp. 3d 316, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2025). ↑
-
Doe v. Epic Games, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2020). ↑
-
Michael McCann, Eben Novy-Williams, NFLer’s Suit Draws Big League Advance into NIL Pay Vortex, Sportico (Sept. 7, 2023), https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2023/dexter-v-big-league-advance-lawsuit-1234736365/. ↑
