Background
The movement to allow student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) continues to sweep across the nation, reshaping amateur athletics from coast to coast. What began as a collegiate phenomenon has steadily made its way into high school athletics, with nearly every state now allowing young athletes to benefit from their NIL in some form.[1]
Ohio, long a traditional holdout, now finds itself at the center of this evolving national conversation. On October 15, 2025, Jamier Brown, the nation’s top-ranked wide receiver in the class of 2027, and his family filed suit against the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (Court) Their goal: to challenge OHSAA’s prohibition on high school athletes benefitting from their NIL.
Although OHSAA previously held a 2022 vote on whether to allow NIL opportunities, participating schools rejected the measure by a decisive 538 to 254 margin.[2] Three years later, that stance — and Ohio’s position on NIL — may be changing.
The Lawsuit
In their complaint, the Browns assert violations of the Ohio Constitution’s freedom of speech and equal protection provisions, along with Ohio Antitrust Law.[3] Specifically, Brown argues that OHSAA’s NIL prohibition suppresses high school athletes’ ability to monetize their own name and image infringes on both economic liberties and freedom of expression, and stifles competition in the now-thriving NIL marketplace.
The Browns’ filing paints a picture of lost opportunity in a state that lags behind much of the nation when it comes to NIL opportunities for high school athletes. And they claim that Ohio’s rules are “outdated and unlawful,”[4] noting that nearly every other state now recognizes NIL rights for high school athletes. Brown details the personal impact — declined offers worth over $100,000 for trading card deals and endorsements from prominent sports brands and local businesses — and highlights how the prohibition limits not just income but also reputation and networking potential.
The complaint seeks both injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent OHSAA from enforcing the NIL prohibition, as well as compensatory and treble damages for lost earning potential. Importantly, Brown notes that this lawsuit is not only about his personal rights — it’s about ensuring that Ohio athletes no longer feel forced to leave their home state to pursue NIL opportunities available elsewhere.
The Injunctive Relief Hearing and Its Implications
A hearing over the Browns’ requested injunctive relief took place on October 20, 2025. There, the Court granted the Browns’ request for a 45-day temporary restraining order (TRO), halting enforcement of OHSAA’s NIL ban. In granting the TRO, the Court found that the Browns met their burden to “demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that [they] are entitled to a TRO[,]” giving credence to the Browns’ claims of alleged antitrust violations by OHSAA. Notably, antitrust is the most common basis for overcoming rules that prohibit or limit student-athletes’ NIL compensation opportunities. In response, OHSAA executive director Doug Ute announced that an emergency referendum vote on NIL will occur within that 45-day window — potentially marking a turning point for Ohio’s athletic community. [5]
The implications reach well beyond the Buckeye State. Should the Browns ultimately prevail, their case could set a precedent that inspires similar challenges in other holdout states, further cementing NIL rights as a nationwide norm for high school athletes. It could also help shape future frameworks for assessing damages tied to lost NIL earnings.
Looking Ahead
As the NIL movement continues to gain traction nationwide, Ohio’s entry into the conversation underscores how rapidly the landscape is shifting. The state that once rejected NIL rights is now poised to reconsider them. Whether the Browns lawsuit ends with OHSAA rule changes or a judicial mandate, one thing is clear: the tide of NIL rights among high school athletes continues to rise, and Ohio is no longer a holdout.
[1] This includes Texas, which recently passed a law that allows high school students over the age of seventeen to earn NIL money. Billy Woods, NIL deals approved for Texas 17-year old athletes, Laredo Morning Times, July 6, 2025, https://www.lmtonline.com/sports/article/nil-deals-approved-texas-17-year-old-athletes-20609280.php
[2] Daniel Susco, NIL ban lawsuit: What to know about the Wayne star player’s challenge of OHSAA rules that’s making national news, Dayton Daily News, October 16, 2025, https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/nil-ban-lawsuit-what-to-know-about-the-wayne-star-players-challenge-of-ohsaa-rules-thats-making-national-news/NI4MPDGOD5DH5JPUFFB75WLE5A/
[3] Jasmine Brown, as parent and guardian for J.B., a minor v. Ohio High School Athletic Association, Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Please, Cause No. 25CV00845.
[4] Pete Thamel, Lawsuit seeks to allow top high school WR to profit from NIL, ESPN, October 15, 2025, https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/46602078/lawsuit-seeks-allow-top-high-school-wr-profit-nil
[5] Brad Bournival, OHSAA executive director announces emergency referendum vote on NIL for high school athletes, Akron Beacon Journal, October 21, 2025, https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/high-school/2025/10/21/jamier-brown-ohsaa-nil-name-image-likeness-money-high-school-athletes/86820721007/.