By Anna Giambelluca, JD
College athletics has been transformed through NIL rights, donor collectives, revenue sharing, and transfer freedom, creating a more professional model that more equitably compensates athletes.
And it appears this transformation may not stop at the NCAA’s doorstep as high school athletes are lacing up their cleats to play in the same legal arena.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, notably the same federal court where O’Bannon, Alston, and House all originated, recently considered whether the rules governing California interscholastic athletics unlawfully restrain trade. In Calhoun v. California Interscholastic Federation, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler issued an order granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss, preserving a narrow—but potentially consequential—antitrust challenge centered on how high school athletes may monetize their name, image, and likeness.
Plaintiff Dominik Calhoun, a former California high school football and track standout, brought a putative class action against the California Interscholastic Federation (“CIF”) and its ten regional sections, along with several media and technology companies. The complaint alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California’s Cartwright Act, and the state’s Unfair Competition Law, arguing that CIF’s regulatory structure suppresses athlete compensation and restricts athlete mobility in ways that unfairly restrain trade.
At its core, the theory reflects the same economic logic that reshaped the collegiate athletics model: student-athletes generate value within a commercial ecosystem that includes media rights, sponsorships, and branded content, yet governing bodies impose rules limiting how athletes themselves may participate in that marketplace. While those arguments have already gained traction in the NCAA context, Calhoun extends the conversation to the interscholastic level, where NIL activity is newer, less regulated, and still legally unsettled.
CIF operates as the governing body for high school athletics in California, administering competition rules for more than 1,600 member schools through its federated council structure and ten regional sections. Its bylaws regulate eligibility, transfers, recruiting, awards, and NIL activity, historically grounded in an education-based model designed to promote competitive balance and academic primacy over commercialization.
The lawsuit challenged three primary categories of CIF rules: limits on athletic awards, transfer and “undue influence” restrictions, and NIL regulations. CIF bylaws cap athletic awards at $250 for regular-season competitions and $500 for postseason play, prohibit cash or cash equivalents, and restrict athletically motivated transfers or recruitment-based enrollment decisions. The final category focusing on NIL regulations proved the most consequential, as it was the only claim to survive the motion to dismiss.
California does allow high school athletes to participate in NIL activity in certain contexts. High-profile athletes such as Bronny James and JuJu Watkins, for example, signed endorsement agreements with Nike while competing at Sierra Canyon High School. Judge Beeler did not frame the dispute as whether NIL itself is permissible at the interscholastic level. Instead, the order centers on a far narrower restriction: CIF’s rule prohibiting athletes from monetizing NIL when it is tied to school affiliation, including the use of uniforms, logos, or other identifying insignia.
That distinction is critical. At the high school level, the commercial value of an athlete’s NIL is often inseparable from the school platform that elevates it. Varsity competition, playoff exposure, championship runs, and broadcast visibility are typically what transform athletes from local participants into marketable figures. Restricting NIL monetization in that context effectively limits athletes to capitalizing on their identity outside the very setting that generates their recognition.
Before addressing the substance of the antitrust claims, the court considered CIF’s immunity defenses. CIF argued it functioned as an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court rejected that argument at the pleadings stage, finding the record did not establish sufficient state intent or control to treat CIF as a governmental instrumentality. CIF is self-governed by member schools and funded primarily through dues, sponsorships, and event revenues rather than direct state appropriations. While that ruling allowed the lawsuit to proceed, CIF prevailed on state-action antitrust immunity for portions of the case. The court held that California’s statutory framework authorizes voluntary associations to regulate interscholastic athletics and reflects legislative intent to prioritize education, deter recruitment, and prevent undue athletic influence. Within that framework, limitations on awards and transfer eligibility were deemed foreseeable results of delegated authority. Those claims were dismissed.
The NIL analysis diverged.
California law permits broadcasters and similar entities to use student-athletes’ NIL in connection with sporting events without obtaining consent. CIF argued its school-affiliation NIL restriction flowed naturally from that statutory structure. Judge Beeler disagreed. The court concluded that while the legislature authorized uncompensated broadcast use of NIL, it did not clearly articulate or foreseeably intend to authorize a rule that categorically bars athletes themselves from monetizing NIL when it includes school-affiliated identity markers such as uniforms or insignia.
That gap in legislative clarity proved decisive. The court allowed the challenge to CIF’s prohibition on monetizing school-affiliated NIL to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
The media defendants, by contrast, were dismissed entirely. The court found no plausible allegation that broadcast or technology companies participated in crafting CIF’s rules or joined any anticompetitive conspiracy. Their role was limited to contracting within CIF’s regulatory system, which alone was insufficient to establish antitrust liability.
Although the decision narrowed the case substantially, the survival of the school-affiliated NIL claim carries significant implications for the future of high school athlete compensation. For many athletes, school affiliation is what creates NIL value in the first place. Highlight clips, televised playoff games, state championship appearances, and school branding often serve as the foundation of an athlete’s commercial identity. If courts ultimately conclude that governing bodies cannot prohibit athletes from monetizing NIL in that setting, state athletic associations may face pressure to build entirely new regulatory infrastructures governing school-affiliated NIL activity.
Such frameworks could address licensing of school marks, sponsorship approval processes, institutional branding rights, and disclosure obligations—mirroring, on a smaller scale, the NIL compliance systems that now exist at the collegiate level.
The ruling also intersects with recruiting and development pipelines. High school exposure increasingly drives collegiate NIL valuation. Athletes who build social media followings and brand partnerships at the prep level often carry that value into college endorsement opportunities. Expanding permissible NIL activity in high school could accelerate that pipeline, allowing athletes to begin monetization and brand-building efforts earlier in their careers.
At the same time, the court’s preservation of state-action immunity for transfer and compensation limits reflects continued judicial deference to education-based athletic governance. Regulations closely tied to preventing recruitment inducements or athletically motivated enrollment decisions remain legally insulated, even as commercial restrictions face greater scrutiny.
Viewed through a broader NIL lens, Calhoun represents less of a wholesale challenge to amateurism and more of a targeted test of athlete identity rights. The case does not question whether interscholastic athletics should professionalize entirely. Rather, it asks whether athletes may participate in commercial markets that already exist around their performance—particularly where third parties are permitted to profit from school-affiliated NIL use.
That framing situates the case squarely within the evolving trajectory of athlete compensation litigation. From O’Bannon to Alston to the modern NIL era, courts have increasingly recognized that restrictions on athlete economic participation must withstand antitrust scrutiny when they intersect with identifiable commercial markets. Calhoun extends that analysis earlier in the athlete development pipeline, where NIL activity is emerging, but governance structures remain underdeveloped.
Ultimately, while much of the complaint was dismissed, the decision leaves open a pathway for continued litigation focused on the commercial rights of high school athletes—specifically, their ability to monetize NIL in school-affiliated contexts. The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint, ensuring that this emerging battleground in athlete compensation law remains far from settled.
If the collegiate NIL revolution marked the first wave of athlete economic reform, cases like Calhoun suggest the next phase may unfold at the interscholastic level, where questions of identity, institutional affiliation, and commercial participation are only beginning to take legal shape.
Anna Giambelluca is an Austin-based attorney and proud alumna of the University of Texas at Austin, where she completed both her undergraduate and legal education. Her work focuses on the intersection of college athletics, athlete advocacy, and sports law.
