05-02-2025, 01:00 PM
I'm not sure what the legal risk would be. I think the legitimate question is to what extent is showing Stanford brand on an ad for another company an implicit endorsement by Stanford of that brand (never mind that in this particular case Stanford already implicitly endorses Nike by wearing Nike clothing anyways). What happens if the ad is for something that the University would rather not associate itself with. You can't police who student-athletes sign NIL deals with, but you can (and want to) restrict the use of the University's branding. Maybe there is legal risk, but I could see Stanford not wanting to have its brand associated with some completely legal but divisive topics.
Of course, this is what happens when you put in restrictions without thinking, and allowing little flexibility. A "we probably don't want to lend our names to NIL deals willy nilly" becomes somehow, we are barring a recognizable athlete from displaying the Stanford name for a company that already sponsors the University.
BC
Of course, this is what happens when you put in restrictions without thinking, and allowing little flexibility. A "we probably don't want to lend our names to NIL deals willy nilly" becomes somehow, we are barring a recognizable athlete from displaying the Stanford name for a company that already sponsors the University.
BC