OHSAA member schools reject name, image, likeness for high school athletes in Ohio

The Independent
·10 min read

COLUMBUS – OHSAA member schools voted to reject a controversial referendum item which would allow high school athletes to make money off of their name, image and likeness, the association announced on Tuesday morning.

Member schools spent the last two weeks voting on the item, one of several referendum items which were on the ballot. Schools had until 4 p.m., Monday, to cast their votes, with a simple majority necessary to make any item the bylaw of the OHSAA.

Schools were notified Tuesday morning of the outcome. The final margin ended up being 538-254 against the referendum.

“Every year, the referendum voting process shows that our member schools have a voice in this democratic process,” OHSAA Executive Director Doug Ute said in a statement. “Our office was very pleased with the discussion and insights our schools expressed this spring as we met with them about each of the 14 proposals. If NIL is going to enter the Ohio interscholastic landscape, we want the schools to be the ones to make that determination. Whatever we do moving forward, it will include discussion on this issue with our school administrators, Board of Directors, staff and leaders of other state high school athletic associations.”

The proposed addition would allow athletes to sign endorsement agreements so long as their teams, schools and/or the OHSAA logo are not used, and provided there are no endorsements with companies that do not support the mission of education-based athletics (casinos, gambling, alcohol, drugs, tobacco).

Other conditions which were to be met in the NIL, if it passed:

  • The athlete does not engage in any NIL marketing/endorsements during official team activities.

  • The agreement/contract shall never require the athlete to display a sponsor's product, or otherwise advertise for a sponsor, during official team activities.

  • The agreement/contract shall only impact the individual athlete with whom the contract is entered and shall never provide any money, merchandise, services of value or any other benefits directly to the athlete's school/team.

  • The athlete who intends to enter a verbal or written contract providing compensation to them for their NIL shall disclose the proposed agreement/contract to the member school at which the student is enrolled and/or participating.

  • Each member school is encouraged to specify a specific school designee to whom such information should be reported. The extent of the disclosure shall be to the satisfaction of each member school but the school shall not advise the athlete against entering into the contract unless any of the stipulations appear to be violated.

The referendum mirrored those changes made at the collegiate level in the last year. Those arrived in colleges across the country due to state laws put in place last summer, including one by the Ohio General Assembly.

The OHSAA said when the referendum item was placed on the ballot the object was to get ahead of any potential laws imposed upon it by the state legislatures. It spent much of April going around to the various regions of the state providing answers to administrators' questions regarding the referendum item during district athletic board meetings.

"I am not shocked by the vote outcome," Massillon City Schools Superintendent Paul Salvino, whose district voted against the referendum, said in a text message. "As we stated before, there are just too many unknown variables to process at this time."

There are nine states — Alaska, Colorado, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Utah — with NIL laws in effect for high school athletes prior to this vote. Ohio was one of several states in the process of considering such laws.

One other referendum item failed to pass. That was a proposal to add an exception to the Enrollment and Attendance Bylaw, which would have permitted a student enrolled at a member public school that does not sponsor a team sport to potentially play that sport at a public school located in a bordering public school district.

That item failed by a 406-393 margin. That was the closest referendum outcome since Competitive Balance during the 2014 cycle, which failed 327-308 before it passed in the following cycle.

A dozen referendum items did pass the vote. There are, as followed:

  • ISSUE 1C: Constitution Article 5-7-3, Transfer of Schools from One Athletic District to Another, and Add Constitution Article 6-1-10 (Modification and New Article): This modification of Constitution Article 5-7-3 and addition of Article 6-1-10 clarifies procedures and factors used for evaluating a request for a school to change OHSAA athletic districts. The amendment 1) restricts requests to those that can meet “objective, published criteria,” 2) restricts how frequently such changes may occur, 3) removes the final decision-making authority from the Board of Directors, which is composed of Reps from the impacted districts, and instead places the decision-making authority with the Executive Director, and 4) allows any denied transfer requests to be heard by the OHSAA Appeals Panel. (Becomes effective May 16, 2022). Passed 669 to 114 (31 abstained)

  • ISSUE 1B: Bylaw 1-4-1, Definition of Interscholastic Contest (Modification): This modification cleans up the definition of an “interscholastic contest” by providing clarity to and more detail on the definition. (Becomes effective August 1, 2022). Passed 785 to 22 (7 abstained)

  • ISSUE 2B: Bylaw 1-5-1, Recognized Sports (Modification of Definition); Bylaws 1-5-2 and 1-5-3 (New Definitions Added), and Bylaw 1-5-4 (Modification): The modification to the definition of Recognized Sports removes the list of recognized sports from the bylaw and moves that list to the General Sports Regulations, to be modified as needed by the Board of Directors. New Bylaws 1-5-2 and 1-5-3 provides definitions of Emerging Sports and Sponsored Events, respectively, and removes those definitions from the General Sports Regulations. The changes also clarify that emerging sports are recognized sports covered under the OHSAA catastrophic insurance policy. The modification in Bylaw 1-5-4 clarifies that all OHSAA recognized sports, including school club teams, must abide by all OHSAA rules. (Becomes effective August 1, 2022). Passed 773 to 28 (12 abstained)

  • ISSUE 3B: Bylaw 4-1-1, Eligibility (New Exception), and Bylaw 2-2-2, Tournament Assignments (Modification): This change enables schools to reward and/or recognize a student manager or a student with an intellectual or physical disability for his/her special contributions to a team and allow them to play in a game without requiring the school to verify certain aspects of eligibility. The participation of such a student is only permitted one time per sports season and the opposing coach and officials would have to be made aware of the student’s participation before the student enters the contest. This concept is already captured in Bylaw 2-2-2, so that Bylaw will also be modified to remove the requirement for the student to meet the standard of the OHSAA scholarship bylaw. (Becomes effective August 1, 2022). Passed 793 to 13 (7 abstained)

  • ISSUE 5B: Bylaw 4-6-2, Residence, Addition of 18-Year-Old Provision to Exception 1 (Addition to Exception): This amendment permits the Executive Director’s Office to approve residency eligibility after considering extenuating circumstances that may compel a student who is 18 and no longer eligible for a legal change of custody/guardianship to transfer schools and move into a new residence with a primary relative while his/her parents are living outside of Ohio. This change mirrors the amendment to the 18¬year¬old provision found within the change of custody exception under the transfer bylaw. The student is still required to meet the requirements of a transfer bylaw exception in order to restore eligibility for the entire season. (Becomes effective August 1, 2022). Passed 674 to 117 (22 abstained)

  • ISSUE 6B: Bylaw 4-7-2, Transfer (Addition of Note/Modification): The modification, which is in the additional note, gives the Executive Director’s Office authority to adjust the period when a student would fulfill the regular season transfer consequence if they are unable to compete during all or part of the first 50 percent of the season due to extenuating circumstances through no fault of the student-athlete. This does NOT allow for the transfer consequence to be waived, nor does it allow for the student to regain eligibility for the OHSAA tournament. (Becomes effective August 1, 2022). Passed 544 to 247 (22 abstained)

  • ISSUE 7B: Bylaw 4-7-2, Transfer (Modification of Exception 1): Besides moving language from the former “Note 1” to more clearly articulate to which school(s) a student can potentially attempt to restore full athletic eligibility via this exception, the modification does the following: 1.) The current language of this exception allows for families to select any non-public school when they move into a new public school district, regardless of the distance of their move. The change sets a new mileage requirement (15 miles) for a student attempting to use this exception at a non-public school. 2.) The current language of this exception allows for families to select any school when they move into a new public school district if the distance between the two residences is over 100 miles. The change decreases that distance to allow for the selection of any school when the distance between the two residences is 80 miles. It is also noted that the reason there is no mileage requirement for approval for transfers to public schools for a move of less than 80 miles is because public schools have defined geographic boundaries which govern state allocated funding and school attendance assignments based on residency. (Becomes effective May 16, 2022). Passed 595 to 182 (36 abstained)

  • ISSUE 8B: Bylaw 4-7-2, Transfer, Remove Current Exception 5 (Removal of Exception): Since the State School for the Blind and State School for the Deaf are no longer members of the OHSAA, this removes the exception for students transferring to these schools. A proposal to add this exception could be recommended should either school desire to return as an OHSAA member school. (Becomes effective August 1, 2022). Passed 767 to 17 (29 abstained)

  • ISSUE 9B: Bylaw 4-7-2, Transfer (Addition of Exception): The new exception gives the Executive Director’s Office authority to approve a one-time transfer of students back to a non-public school located within the same system of education BUT ONLY if the student was continuously enrolled within that system of education in grades 4 through 8. (Becomes effective August 1, 2022). Passed 517 to 273 (23 abstained)

  • ISSUE 10B: Bylaw 4-7-2, Transfer (Addition of Exception): The additional exception provides a pathway for a student who may have been subject to inappropriate adult behavior to transfer schools and not be subject to a period of ineligibility so long as certain criteria is met. The exception has no application for a student/family displeased with the former coach’s training tactics/style. (Becomes effective August 1, 2022). Passed 537 to 257 (19 abstained)

  • ISSUE 11B: Bylaw 4-10, Amateurism (Modification): This modification clarifies that money can never be accepted as a result of participation in interscholastic competition and also that a student can be a professional in one sport but still retain their amateur status in a different OHSAA recognized sport. (Becomes effective May 16, 2022). Passed 666 to 122 (25 abstained)

  • ISSUE 13B: Bylaw 5-1-1, Awards (Modification): This modification clarifies that the award threshold from participation in an event is reset after each competition and that the award must be given as a result of participation in a specific athletic competition. Also, the award/prize amount has been increased to $500 per competition from $400. (Becomes effective May 16, 2022). Passed 674 to 109 (31 abstained)

This article originally appeared on The Independent: Member schools reject OHSAA NIL referendum for high school athletes