The 2024 “Connecting the Threads” Business Law Prof Blog symposium featured, among other things (see, e.g., here), my research on blockchains and contracts. I last wrote about that work in this space here. My symposium presentation focused in on the actual and potential uses of blockchain technology in collegiate sports name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) arrangements.

In the spring, my article from the symposium, NILs on Blockchains: The Good, The Bad, And Avoiding The Ugly, was published. The SSRN abstract is included below.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) and colleges and universities have long benefitted financially from the name, image, and likeness (commonly known as “NIL”) of student-athletes. Yet, until recently, collegiate athletes were not permitted to generate revenue from their NILs. Now, a collegiate athlete can benefit financially from their personal brand–their right of publicity–through arrangements in which others are granted rights to use their NILs.

Technological innovation facilitates the utilization of collegiate athlete branding. The Internet and its enablement of social media and digital advertising provide but one type of example. A less obvious digital technology that is facilitating NIL arrangements, however, is blockchain technology.

This article undertakes to begin an exploration of the potential advantages and disadvantages of NIL arrangements executed on blockchains primarily as a means of ascertaining and evaluating related legal and lawyering issues. In general, the article views these advantages from the perspective of the collegiate athlete and those who may represent them in NIL advice, compliance, and transactions, although it also includes certain information and reflections on relative values to other market participants (including the NCAA and colleges). To engage with this topic, the article first describes NIL arrangements generally and as they may relate to blockchain technologies. After establishing this foundational information, the article proceeds to isolate the positive and negative aspects of blockchain NIL arrangements and make related observations before offering a summary conclusion.

There is certainly a lot more that can and should be done to explore the interrelationship of NIL arrangements and blockchain technology. I hope that others will join me in doing this work, which is part of larger issues at the intersection of technological innovation and contract law and practice. Ultimately, since blockchain technology is increasingly being used in commercial dealings and generative artificial intelligence is increasingly being incorporated into blockchains, legal advisors need to be familiar with the capacity and limitations of blockchains and artificial intelligence in business contracting. The legal academy and practice communities both can help inform and educate.