California NIL Rules

At a glance

NIL in California today.

College NIL: Legal (state law). High-school NIL: Allowed, per State NIL law (SB 206 / Fair Pay to Play, as amended by SB 26) + CIF (HS). NIL collectives: operating. Deal-disclosure threshold: Any deal. Governing statute: California SB 206, the Fair Pay to Play Act (2019), as amended by SB 26 (2021) (Cal. Educ. Code § 67456), amended, effective September 2021. High-school governance: California Interscholastic Federation (CIF). Last reviewed August 2026 — this is a plain-English overview pending verification, not legal advice.

What to know

How the rules play out in California.

California's SB 206 (Fair Pay to Play Act) remains in force as amended by SB 26; a separate state-mandated revenue-sharing bill (AB 252) died again in early 2026, so today's law still layers SB 206 on top of the House settlement's national revenue-sharing/clearinghouse system — though a 2026 lawsuit from Stanford and USC players now argues the settlement's pay caps actually violate California's own NIL statutes, so that relationship is contested rather than settled. CIF still allows high-school NIL deals under Bylaw 212 as long as athletes skip school marks/uniforms and take no money from the school, boosters, or coaches, but a January 2026 ruling in Calhoun v. CIF found CIF is NOT immune specifically on its rule barring athletes from referencing their school identity in NIL deals — that piece of CIF's rulebook is currently exposed pending an amended complaint. No California statute sets a specific dollar disclosure threshold (a proposed $5,000 collective-disclosure bill, SB 906, was vetoed); in practice disclosure runs through each school's compliance office plus, for D-I athletes, the national NIL Go clearinghouse's $600 threshold — confirm current specifics with each school.

Who governs NIL in California

California started the NIL era: SB 206, the Fair Pay to Play Act, was signed September 30, 2019 as the first state law of its kind, and SB 26 (2021) moved its start date up to September 1, 2021. The rules live in Education Code § 67456, with NCAA policy and the College Sports Commission's NIL Go clearinghouse layered on top since the House settlement. For high schoolers, the California Interscholastic Federation governs eligibility. CIF has long treated NIL as permissible under its amateur-status rules, and its sections publish guidance on what stays inside the lines.

What Educ. Code § 67456 actually says

The section's key subdivisions, as of August 2026, include the following.

• § 67456(a)(1): an institution may not enforce any rule preventing a participating student from earning NIL compensation, and earning it cannot affect scholarship eligibility.
• § 67456(a)(2): athletic associations such as the NCAA may not prevent a student at a participating California institution from earning NIL compensation.
• § 67456(b): institutions and associations may not pay a prospective athlete for NIL or athletic reputation — a recruiting-inducement ban.
• § 67456(c): athletes may obtain licensed professional representation, including agents and attorneys, without institutional interference.
• § 67456(e): athletes must disclose NIL contracts to their institution, may not sign deals that conflict with a team contract, and the institution must identify the conflicting provisions.
• § 67456(f): a team contract may not restrict an athlete's NIL use while the athlete is not engaged in official team activities.

High-school rules under the CIF

CIF's published amateur-status rules (state Bylaw 212, mirrored in section rulebooks) let high schoolers monetize their own name, image and likeness, so long as the deal stays separate from the school. The Los Angeles City Section's published eligibility rules show the rule-level detail.

• A student may not wear a school team uniform or any identifying school insignia while appearing in any advertisement, promotional activity or endorsement for a commercial product or service.
• A student may not lend their name and team affiliation for purposes of commercial endorsement — the deal has to trade on the athlete, not the school.
• Value limits on athletic awards still apply (in the LA City Section's published rules, more than $100 for regular-season or $250 for post-season awards can cost amateur status).
• Schools, coaches and boosters reportedly may not arrange or facilitate NIL deals for athletes; CIF guidance treats that as an improper inducement or undue influence under its rules.

The practical read

As of August 2026, a California college athlete can sign endorsement deals, hire a licensed agent, keep their scholarship, and — post-House — receive direct revenue-sharing from their school, with deals of $600 or more going through NIL Go. A high schooler can earn from their personal brand at any age under CIF rules, but must keep uniforms, mascots, logos and any school reference out of the content, and cannot take deals arranged by their school or its boosters. This is general information, not legal advice.

What's moving

The House settlement (approved June 2025) lets schools share roughly $20.5 million with athletes in year one, and California schools have opted in — but the settlement's caps sit awkwardly next to § 67456's ban on preventing athletes from earning NIL compensation. That tension is now in court: on June 9, 2026, USC's Talanoa Ili and Stanford's Charlie Mirer filed a class action in the Northern District of California against the NCAA, the power conferences and the College Sports Commission, arguing the NIL Go clearinghouse and the revenue-share cap suppress NIL pay in violation of California's statute and similar laws in other states. How that case resolves could reshape what the cap means for California athletes.

Go deeper

Compare states, then run your numbers.

Compare California with every other state in the NIL Rules by State tracker, estimate your take-home on NIL income with the free NIL Tax Calculator, and see what your name, image, and likeness is actually worth with HDBND's free athlete tools.