Contract risk is rising
Brands are tightening deal language and relying on broad morality and exit clauses, while observers urge clearer, creator‑friendly terms—less vague termination language and defined cure periods. A recent overview points to the need for stronger contract structures and precise deliverables, and the FTC’s strategic plan signals wider regulatory scrutiny that will push brands toward more cautious, written controls (hoopshq.com) (natlawreview.com).
Brands and schools are writing tighter creator and athlete deals, with broader exit language and more detailed controls over what gets posted and when. (hoopshq.com) (ftc.gov) Andy Katz reported this month that coaches and administrators see weak contract structure as a problem in the current name, image and likeness market, where deals can unravel over transfers, disputes and unclear obligations. Hoops HQ’s overview pointed to the need for precise deliverables and stronger contract terms rather than loose handshake-style arrangements. (hoopshq.com) Lawyers advising both athletes and businesses are focusing on the same pressure points in 2026: scope of rights, payment triggers, clawbacks, termination language and exact deliverables such as the number of posts, platforms and deadlines. Ashley Long of HSB Law wrote on March 25 that many disputes start with ambiguity, not bad faith. (hsblawfirm.com) The shift is not limited to college sports. The Federal Trade Commission said on April 3 that its Fiscal Years 2026 through 2030 strategic plan will guide the agency’s work on consumer protection, competition and enforcement metrics for the next five years. (ftc.gov) That matters for creator contracts because the Federal Trade Commission already requires endorsers to disclose material connections clearly and conspicuously when audiences would not expect them. Those rules apply to influencer marketing, reviews and endorsements, and they put legal risk on brands as well as creators. (ftc.gov) (law.cornell.edu) In college sports, the legal stakes are rising at the same time that money and control are rising. The National Collegiate Athletic Association says athletes may be paid by third parties for uses of their name, image and likeness, but its interim policy still bars pay-for-play and improper recruiting inducements. (ncaa.org) (ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com) ESPN reported in March 2025 that some proposed school-linked name, image and likeness agreements went far beyond a basic ad deal, with contract terms covering tattoos, dance moves and other rights that experts said looked more like employment controls. The schools and conferences identified in ESPN’s reporting largely declined to comment, while the National Collegiate Athletic Association said it does not control how individual deals are structured. (espn.com) The practical response has been more paper, not less. Businesses want written approval rights, defined posting schedules, exclusivity limits and fast termination options if a creator misses deliverables or creates reputational trouble. (hsblawfirm.com) (hoopshq.com) Athlete-side and creator-side lawyers are pushing the other way on the wording. They want narrower morality clauses, specific breach standards and cure periods that give the talent a set number of days to fix a missed post, disclosure error or other default before the money stops. (hsblawfirm.com) (hoopshq.com) The result is a market where the biggest fights are moving from headline dollar amounts to the fine print. In 2026, the contract itself is becoming the product both sides are negotiating hardest. (ftc.gov) (hoopshq.com)
