Influencer-Athletes At The Olympics And On Campus: The Contract Pitfalls Are The Same

When Ilia Malinin steps onto the ice in Milano–Cortina, he is not only competing for medals. He is also competing in the modern attention economy, where a single performance can drive millions of views, followers, and (sometimes) sponsorship inquiries. That visibility is a commercial opportunity, but it is also a legal and contractual risk, because the most "valuable" posting window can also be the most restricted one.

For Olympic athletes, a key example is the IOC's "Rule 40" marketing restrictions. For the Milano–Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games, the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) identifies the Rule 40 period as January 30, 2026, through February 24, 2026. In other words, the Games window can coincide with the tightest constraints on how athletes and their personal sponsors may activate marketing.

Now contrast that with a summer example: Ilona Maher entered Paris 2024 with 628,000 Instagram followers and had 2.1 million the morning after Team USA won bronze. Her growth illustrates what athletes already know about their name, image, and likeness: when audience attention spikes, brand interest often follows. Yet that is also when poorly drafted contracts can do the most damage, because deliverables, exclusivity, usage rights, and termination triggers all get tested in real time.

And consider Noah Lyles, one of the most prominent U.S. track stars. His official USA Track & Field bio lists his sponsor as adidas, underscoring the reality that elite athletes increasingly operate with sophisticated, long-term brand relationships, rather than one-off promo posts. Student-athletes, especially those in D-II/D-III or low-viewership sports, are often building the same type of influencer playbook, just earlier in their careers and with a different overlay of school and eligibility constraints.

The bottom line: Olympic athletes and student-athlete influencers face different rulebooks, but the pitfalls of contracts are remarkably similar.

Olympic athletes: the "rules overlay" that contracts must anticipate

For Olympians, the unique risk is that a sponsor agreement may require content and activations precisely when the athlete is most constrained by Games-time marketing rules. The USOPC's Rule 40 guidance is not merely a compliance memo; it is a contract variable. In addition, Olympic-related brand guidelines and trademark restrictions can limit how sponsors and athletes use protected words, imagery, venue backdrops, or anything that implies official affiliation, creating "ambush marketing" risk even when a post is otherwise permitted.

Contract takeaway (Olympics): if a sponsor wants posts "during the Games," the agreement should (i) define which deliverables are permitted during the Rule 40 period, (ii) build in rescheduling or substitute deliverables, and (iii) allocate who bears the risk if planned activations must be modified or paused.

Student-athletes: different constraints, same contract exposure

NIL agreements can be equally high-stakes even where the athlete's sport rarely appears on national broadcasts. The student-athlete's value may be local, niche, or community-driven, but still real. The risk is that many NIL deals use influencer templates that assume full scheduling flexibility, unlimited usage rights, and aggressive exclusivity. In reality, NIL "rules overlays" can include school and conference policies, state NIL law requirements, and team or brand obligations (for example, apparel/equipment restrictions) that affect what an athlete can wear, say, or post.

Contract takeaway (NIL): NIL agreements should be reviewed not only for standard sponsorship terms but also for how they interact with school policy, team rules, and other requirements that may affect the athlete's ability to deliver on the sponsor's timeline. A strong NIL agreement also avoids remedies that pressure a student-athlete into noncompliance (e.g., rigid post-by dates on game/travel days) and instead uses substitute deliverables and cure periods.

Common legal pitfalls in influencer-style athlete deals

1) Exclusivity that is broader than the athlete realizes

"Category exclusivity" is often drafted expansively ("fitness," "wellness," "sports apparel"), effectively blocking future opportunities. This risk hits NIL athletes especially hard because a single broad exclusivity clause can eliminate multiple potential local or regional partners.

Fix: narrow and define the category; carve out existing relationships; clarify what "competitive" means.

2) Deliverables that are vague, rigid, or misaligned with real schedules

Many agreements specify a fixed number of posts or require content on specific dates. That can be problematic during Olympic marketing restriction windows and unrealistic for student-athletes balancing travel, training, and academics.

Fix: add flexibility (substitute deliverables, reasonable posting windows), objective acceptance criteria, and cure periods.

3) Overbroad usage rights and perpetual licenses

Sponsors often want the right to reuse posts, images, and video indefinitely and across any media. For an athlete, that can impair later sponsorship opportunities and create unexpected brand conflicts long after the relationship ends.

Fix: limit the license by time, territory, media, and campaign; prohibit sublicensing without consent; add a phase-out/takedown obligation after termination.

4) Morals clauses and "termination for controversy" provisions

Visibility increases scrutiny. A one-sided morals clause can allow termination based on subjective judgments, allegations, or vague "public disrepute" standards. That risk applies to both Olympians and NIL athletes whose content is widely shared.

Fix: define triggers, require notice and an opportunity to respond, and negotiate proportional remedies instead of automatic forfeiture.

5) Indemnity and liability provisions that shift the entire risk to the athlete

Influencer templates frequently require the athlete to indemnify the sponsor for broad categories of claims, including those arising from sponsor-provided materials, instructions, or product claims.

Fix: limit indemnity to the athlete's breach and misconduct; require sponsor indemnity for sponsor materials and trademarks; align liability caps with the deal value.

6) FTC endorsement disclosures and platform rules are treated as an afterthought

Even where the business terms are solid, missing or inconsistent "#ad"/paid partnership disclosures can create regulatory and reputational risk for both the sponsor and the athlete. Platform tools (e.g., "Paid Partnership" tags) also have their own requirements.

Fix: require compliant disclosure language and/or platform tagging; allocate responsibilities (sponsor provides guidance, athlete posts accurately); and include a cure process for noncompliant posts (edit, repost, or substitute deliverable).

Conclusion

Malinin's Milano–Cortina spotlight illustrates the modern reality: elite performance and influencer economics now intersect. Maher's Paris growth shows how quickly attention can translate into commercial value. Lyles's established sponsorship profile reflects how serious these relationships can become at the highest level.

For both Olympic influencer-athletes and NIL student-athletes, the most common mistakes are not "social media mistakes." They are contract mistakes, exclusivity, deliverables, usage rights, morals clauses, and risk allocation. The rules differ. The pitfalls do not.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.