NCAA Brings New Look to College Uniforms and New Revenue Source for Schools

College teams could look different this fall. Starting in August, companies can sponsor logos and patches on athletic uniforms. This opens up new opportunities for brands and schools. But before signing any deals, they’ll need to carefully navigate conflicts of interest, reputational risks and state law.

On Jan. 23, the NCAA Division I Cabinet, high-level decision-makers comprised of representatives and student-athletes across all Division I universities, approved Proposal 2025-35, permitting private commercial entities to sponsor logos and patches on college athletic uniforms starting Aug. 1.            

New Era, New Look, New Revenue

In the summer of 2025, a landmark settlement resolved House v. NCAA and established a revenue-sharing model allowing universities to pay current and future student-athletes from a pool of nearly $21 million during the 2025-2026 school year. In the post-House settlement era, universities have been searching for new major revenue streams to fund the revenue-sharing model. The approval of sponsor patches on uniforms is one way to offset this cost. Sponsorship patch deals are estimated to range from $750,000 to multiple millions of dollars for major Division I universities in basketball and football. 

Logos and patches are nothing new in the college athletics world. Collegiate athletes have donned the logo or patch of uniform and equipment manufacturers for years, such as Nike, Adidas, Marucci, etc. The new rule continues allowing uniform and equipment manufacturers but expands approval to additional logos or patches from other commercial or nonprofit entities for pregame, game and postgame activities.

The Parameters of the New Rule

Under the new rule, teams may display:

• Uniforms and apparel: Up to two additional logos or trademarks during pregame activities, competitions and postgame activities.
• Equipment: one additional commercial logo on equipment during the preseason and regular season.
• Conference championships: one additional commercial logo on uniforms and apparel for conference championship events (in addition to the two logos above).

Each additional logo on uniforms and apparel is restricted to 4-by-4-inch squares, cannot resemble the manufacturer’s logo, cannot interfere with the NCAA-required uniform markings, and must comply with other restrictions set forth in the playing rules for the individual sport. Additionally, at present, this additional logo policy does not extend to NCAA championships, such as the College World Series, NCAA college football playoffs, or NCAA March Madness.

Legal Considerations

In this era of commercialized college athletics with highly devoted fans, the opportunities for brands and commercial entities to get in the game have never been stronger. However, this brings with it several legal considerations that universities and commercial entities should bear in mind when evaluating sponsorship deals:

• Player-specific NIL conflicts: An estimated 17,300 NIL deals have been reported between student-athletes and partners. Given the vast number of these deals, no one deal is identical. It is important that potential logo sponsors and universities carefully navigate any potential conflicts that may arise between institutional sponsorships and individual athlete deals, including exclusivity provisions, carve-outs, or other restrictions that prohibit additional sponsorship for individual players. This issue becomes particularly important moving forward as universities and individual athletes negotiate new athlete-specific NIL deals and university logo sponsorships.    
• Uniform and equipment manufacturers: Universities and uniform or equipment manufacturers will often enter into lucrative long-term exclusive agreements for uniforms, bats, helmets, golf clubs, etc. These agreements may also include athletic arena or event sponsors. Logo sponsors and universities will need to meticulously structure deals to avoid any potential issues, including consideration of logo placement, right of first refusals, and logo design.
• Reputational issues: Universities and prospective logo sponsors should establish internal logo sponsor guidelines to limit reputational concerns. These include identifying the core values of not only the brand and university but also the values of the fan base. While specific considerations will be deal and university specific, it is important that both logo sponsors and universities are aligned and clearly understand expectations and any penalties if issues arise.
• State-law issues: Publicly funded universities are subject to state laws, which require any procurement of goods to go through a request for proposal and competitive bidding process with accompanying transparency obligations. This is an important consideration for private corporations who may be subject to certain disclosure requirements.

Please contact Nash Gilmore, Rhett Parker or any member of the Phelps media, sports and entertainment team with questions or for advice or guidance.