Collegiate ‘Likeness’ Deals Tempt Teens To Forfeit Future Millions For A Blinged-Out, $80,000 Prom
College 'name, image, and likeness' deals are seducing young athletes into making rash financial choices with long-term ramifications.Netflix says it may depict or portray your child's likeness if you visit one of its venues.
The scary terms of service come from Netflix House, a new "free to enter" destination that has popped up in Dallas and Philadelphia simultaneously.
'Our likeness is one of the only things we have left in the age of AI.'
Netflix House is described as a "first-of-its-kind, permanent, year-round home" for Netflix-themed games, experiences, and merch. While fans can enter for free, it may cost them perpetual rights to their name, image, and likeness if Netflix has its way.
In a viral video, content creator Rebecca Caplinger explained the frightening terms that Netflix listed on its help page for the venues. Therein Netflix notifies attendees that even their children will lose their NIL rights.
"When you visit Netflix House, we may photograph, record, depict, or otherwise capture the name, image, voice, or likeness of you, or in the case of parents or guardians, of any minor ('your child'), as you engage with the Experiences, and/or other content offered within Netflix House," the terms read.
The legal statement continues, stating that "anyone" authorized by Netflix affiliates will gain "irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive right to photograph, record, depict, and/or portray you or your child" as well as use their "simulated likeness, name, image, photograph, voice, and actions, in connection with Netflix House operations (including, by way of example, for security or analytical purposes)."
RELATED: New Netflix movie reimagines fairy-tale villains as misunderstood — and it's getting scorched online
Not only do Netflix House's rules allegedly give Netflix ownership of content featuring you, it notes that any "user generated content" taken inside the venue still relinquishes its copyrights to Netflix perpetually and remains "non-exclusive" and "royalty-free" while having irrevocable licensing.
Caplinger noted that she first saw the terms of service in a TikTok video and had to check it out for herself.
"It's real, and it's worse than I thought it was," Caplinger said, as she revealed she has a background in criminal justice and security.
"I don't like what they're doing. ... When you walk in there, you're giving them everything," she added. "And you're giving them the right to AI-generate you."
RELATED: Culture’s great subversion machine has broken down at last

"Parents should be f**king pissed," Caplinger told Blaze News. "I am concerned that a lot of parents do not care about child safety online ... hopefully it's just a wake-up call."
"I don't think that any company or corporation should be trying to buy out your likeness, I think that it's a bigger ploy," the New Jersey resident went on.
She concluded, "Our likeness is one of the only things we have left in the age of AI, our human behavior. So basically you're selling your human behavior to a robot."
Blaze News reached out to Netflix to ask about customer concerns and whether or not it believes that simply entering a venue should mean people hand over their NIL licensing.
Netflix did not respond to the request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Miami Hurricanes football coach Mario Cristobal said any player who is looking to hold off playing until they get a better name, image, and likeness deal may as well get off the team.
Cristobal's remarks came after Tennessee parted ways with quarterback Nico Iamaleava because the star player was looking to restructure, and reportedly almost double, his NIL deal.
Iamaleava was one of the first NIL-era football players to get a lucrative contract and subsequently represented the first public holdout between a school and a star quarterback over NIL compensation, CBS reported.
In the wake of Iamaleava's departure from Tennessee, Cristobal attempted to get out ahead of any possible contract disputes with his own players, and he said they can either play under their agreed-upon terms or leave the team.
"We’re not going to do that at Miami, and I say that without any hesitation," Cristobal said, per the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "If anyone's thinking that — and they could be the best player in the world — if they want to play holdout, they might as well play get out."
Cristobal's comments came after a Hurricanes spring game, with the coach positioning Miami as a school that does not believe in having such disputes.
"We don't want to do that, and we don't want Miami to become that," he continued. "Too many guys have sweat and bled and laid it on the line on that field to ever become that kind of program."
NCAA schools now seemingly find themselves in a similar battle to when NIL deals were first instituted — positioning themselves on the moral high ground when it comes to contract disputes and attempting to convince fans that any player who, rightly or wrongly, wants a restructured deal or more money is a detriment to the program's dignity.
Tennessee coach Josh Heupel labeled the ordeal as the "state of college football" and claimed that "at the end of the day, no one is ever bigger than the program. That includes me, too."
Heupel added, "It's going to be around a long time after I'm done and after they're gone, and that's what special about being here is that there is a legacy and a tradition that is so rich and a logo that's recognized not just across the nation but around the world, too."ESPN's Chris Low reported last week that Iamaleava was seeking around $4 million, but Tennessee officials "weren't going to blink."
— (@)
Iamaleava brought Tennessee a 10-3 record in 2024 and a spot in the College Football Playoff. He started in the Orange Bowl and averaged 221.2 passing yards per game, with 19 touchdowns, five interceptions, and 2,930 passing yards.
Tennessee's athletic programs were ranked 18th in the nation in 2024 with a reported $154,566,935 income, according to data from USA Today.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Electronic Arts will increase its payments to college athletes this year for their name, image, and likeness, more than doubling the payouts from 2024.
In email to Division I NCAA athletes on Tuesday, EA Sports announced it would increase payments from $600 to $1,500 to football players for their inclusion in the upcoming college football video game.
Players included in the deal will also receive a copy of the deluxe edition of College Football 26, a bonus they similarly received for the last game. Some players will again serve as brand ambassadors for the game and receive further compensation.
Discussions did not go so easily for EA Sports last year. Many accused the game giant of undercompensating athletes, something Texas quarterback and legacy player Arch Manning seemed very aware of.
The nephew of Super Bowl winners Peyton and Eli Manning, Arch held out on negotiations until the 11th hour, when Electronic Arts eventually caved and paid a reported $50,000 (or more) to have the young star appear in the game. Soon thereafter, Manning released a promotional video with his uncle Eli to promote the title.
"I'm IN the game," Manning wrote, along with the signature "horns up" emoji representing Texas.
College sports reporter Pete Nakos told Blaze News at the time that cover athletes for the game received payments in the low six figures.

More than 8,000 players agreed to be in to the previous game within days of being offered a deal in 2024, with a total of 14,000 athletes opting in. This averaged out to about 85 players per team.
NCAA Football 25 was the first video game of its kind in 10 years, and fans flocked to stores and online retailers to make it the highest-selling sports game of all time. It was reported last July that the game had taken in a reported $500 million in just a few weeks, according to On3.
Speaking on the new NIL deal, EA Sports executive Sean O'Brien said the company's approach "empowers each athlete to make their own decision."
"College sports are growing and changing," O'Brien continued. "Our focus at EA Sports is on continuing to put athletes first as we bring them in the game in College Football 26 and beyond."
Agency OneTeam Partners has a multiyear contract with EA Sports to negotiate group licensing rights and reportedly claims to advocate on behalf of the players due to their lack of unionization. However, EA still makes the final decision in terms of how much the company will pay the college athletes.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The NCAA men’s national basketball tournament has multiplied its TV revenue nearly 70 times since the early 1980s.
This investment has become formidable for both sides of the deal, as the yearly revenue for the annual tournament has now surpassed $1 billion in broadcasting rights alone.
The numbers stem from a 1982 deal in which CBS purchased the tournament broadcasting rights for a mere $48 million for three years, or $16 million annually.
Year after year, CBS has renewed its deals and the NCAA has gladly increased its price. In 2010, CBS and Turner agreed to a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal that gave the networks the TV rights to March Madness through 2024, roughly $770 million per year.
In 2016, CBS and Turner Sports announced those rights would be extended through 2032 for $8.8 billion, or $1.1 billion per year.
This decades-long relationship has not only increased the NCAA’s TV revenue by more than 68 times, but it has allowed CBS Sports to sell ads at prices near to Super Bowl level.
Yahoo reported that ads for the 2023 March Madness finals cost between $2.2 million and $2.3 million for just 30 seconds of airtime.
While figures can be hard to pinpoint, they seemingly continue to rise. The women’s tournament even touted that its advertising revenue had doubled in 2024, likely because the tournament featured star player Caitlin Clark.
In the end, CBS and Warner Bros. Discovery (which now owns Turner Broadcasting) earn an estimated $1 billion+ per year in profit themselves off the tournament.
While figures for the NCAA may have changed due to the introduction of the College Football Playoff, the men’s basketball tournament still accounts for a large majority of the NCAA’s revenue as of 2021. That year, of the $1.16 billion the NCAA took home, 85%, or $986 million, was attributed to March Madness.

March Madness 2024 set records for ticket prices for both the women’s and men’s tournaments, with the men’s semifinal reaching an average price of $1,603 per ticket.
Things look like they will get bigger (and more expensive) for the Final Four this year, as Vivid Seats lists the lowest price for tickets at the Alamodome in San Antonio, Texas, at $223. The next best seats are at least triple the price, with some of the 200-level tickets easily eclipsing last year’s record prices.
If fans are looking to get into the lower bowl, tickets are ranging from $500 in the back all the way up to $5,900 for courtside seats. These prices are not just for resales, either. Ticketmaster’s remaining seats will cost at least $3,500 to get anywhere close to the action, meaning the 20th row.
Fans are better off paying for a First Four ticket, the new play-in games that kick off the tournament. Prices at the University of Dayton Arena in Dayton, Ohio, start at just $34, but can go up to $500.
Tickets for the tournament final — which appear to have been bought up immediately — start at $600 on Ticketmaster but quickly reach the $3,000 range for lower-level seats. Some resellers are posting astronomical $7,000, $10,000, or even $13,000 asking prices, but those should not be taken seriously as legitimate asks.
The new trend of resellers posting a “not going” price is simply a fan’s way of saying that while he or she wants to go to the event, there is a price at which the fan is willing to sell. These do not reflect realistic average ticket costs, however.
Every year, tens of millions of Americans gamble on March Madness, and the number is steadily increasing in volume and dollar value.
According to the American Gaming Association, 47 million American adults wagered approximately $8.5 billion on the tournament in 2019.
By 2022, the numbers had decreased to 45 million American adults wagering about $3.1 billion.
The reason behind the monetary decrease in betting that year is unclear, but by 2023 the figures had skyrocketed more than ever before. A whopping 68 million American adults planned on betting a total of $15.5 billion that year.
That is a 21-million person increase coupled with a $7 billion bump, or about an 82% increase in spending. At the same time, around 56 million of those adults said they planned on participating in a bracket contest, as well.
The estimated gambling totals of years past were made without actually running the bets through proper channels, the gaming association claimed.
'Regulated sports betting over the past five years has brought safeguards to more than half of American adults ...'
In 2018, the organization estimated that 97% of the bets placed on the national tournament were placed illegally.
Geoff Freeman, the company’s former CEO, said at the time that sports betting laws were so out of touch that “tens of millions of Americans” were being turned into criminals “for the simple act of enjoying college basketball.”
Freeman cited a $150 billion figure in annual illegal sports betting in the United States.
By 2023, the company had changed its tune after betting had become more regulated across the country.
“Critically, the expansion of regulated sports betting over the past five years has brought safeguards to more than half of American adults who can now bet legally in their home market,” President and CEO Bill Miller said.
However, according to the organization's gambling legalization map, sports betting is still illegal in at least 12 states, including Texas, California, Alaska, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Players still do not get paid for their participation in the national championship tournament despite the NCAA making the bulk of its revenue on the tournament.
While revenue-sharing is still likely something for players to put up a fight about, the notoriety of the tournament is resulting in more name, image, and likeness deals for players than ever before.
In fact, brands have been betting big on players who play for teams that are considered shoe-ins for the tournament.
For starters, the Dairy Alliance is turning back the clock with a recent milk-related sponsorship with three college basketball stars. Zakai Zeigler from No. 8-ranked Tennessee, Jaxson Robinson from No. 15-ranked Kentucky, and Zamareya Jones from the No. 9-ranked women’s team at N.C. State each inked deals in February.
At the end of the month, JuJu Watkins from the No. 4-ranked USC signed a deal with United Airlines for an undisclosed amount.
While Syracuse star Kiyan Anthony may not be appearing in the national tournament, he still appeared in an AT&T ad for March Madness alongside his father, former NBA player Carmelo Anthony.
Other players from Auburn, Texas, Kansas, Ohio State, and UCLA all appeared in an Under Armour spot in preparation for the tournament, as well.
Lastly, two basketball stars who will appear in the men’s tournament have climbed their way up the NIL valuation charts just in time for March.
Cooper Flagg of Duke and AJ Dybantsa of BYU are now ranked No. 2 and No. 6 respectively in national rankings for NIL value. Going into the tournament, Dybantsa has deals with Nike and Red Bull, while Flagg has teamed up with Fanatics and Gatorade.
While it seems like a billion dollars per year not being shared with players is still a sore spot that needs prodding, thankfully, young athletes are now being compensated, handsomely, for the spotlight they bring to their schools.
As NIL deals only increase in value and scope in terms of which athletes are able to pull monster deals, it will not be long before March Madness features dozens of teenage millionaires playing in a single tournament, with each of them generating more brand wealth than entire WNBA teams.
Former UFC welterweight Jon Fitch says the UFC still unfairly pushes its athletes to sign lifelong agreements to give up their name, image, and likeness rights.
In an interview with Blaze News, Fitch discussed a lawsuit against the UFC that he was involved with for years. His issues with the organization began all the way back in 2008, when the UFC dropped him for refusing to sign what he described as a lifetime contract for his likeness rights. The dispute famously took just 24 hours to resolve before Fitch was welcomed back into the promotion after agreeing to terms that would see him in a UFC video game.
'They wanted me to sign my image and likeness rights away for zero dollars.'
Fitch claimed these contracts still exist and that fighters are still signing away their likeness rights in perpetuity. Particularly, Fitch referred to UFC heavyweight champion Jon Jones and former champion Conor McGregor. Fitch said the UFC's consistent mentions of Jones as the greatest of all time and the organization persistently teasing McGregor's return both are efforts to capitalize on the fighters' likenesses.
"They own Jon Jones. They own him in a way that no one was ever able to own Muhammad Ali or Bruce Lee. Think about if a corporation or a film studio or Don King, like, one of Ali's promoters, owned everything about Ali," Fitch said, adding that the UFC "own[s] every fighter. That was my whole thing back then. ... They wanted me to sign my image and likeness rights away for zero dollars ... forever."
Fitch then referred to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000, which prohibits boxing promoters from requiring boxers to grant future promotional rights as a prerequisite for competing. This rule does not apply to mixed martial arts, however, which Fitch said often traps fighters into one promotion when their marketing value is at its highest.
The 47-year-old said he didn't ask for money during his original dispute; he simply wanted a 20-year sunset clause for his likeness rights, which means he would have been under contract to this day. He further claimed that the UFC used his situation to "scare everybody else into signing, and it worked."
The class-action lawsuit against the UFC, which lasted more than 10 years, claimed that the company suppressed fighter pay by using an anti-competitive scheme to shut out rivals. The UFC has declined to comment on the suit on many occasions (in particular to MMA fighting) and has simply said that it will "vigorously defend itself and its business practices."
In February, the UFC finally settled for a whopping $375 million.
Other outlets have reported that UFC contracts often include exclusive image and likeness rights as well as competitive restrictions.
At the same time, however, former fighters such as Demetrious Johnson have expressed gratitude over the extensive likeness rights. Johnson has praised payouts that he has received from UFC video games.
The UFC didn't immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment on Fitch's claims.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!