Athletic competition between the states
The rapid spread of Name, Image, Likeness laws and why it matters for understanding policy diffusion
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6328015 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Roshaun Colvin (Department of Political Science University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA), Joshua M Jansa (0000-0003-0917-6128, Department of Political Science Oklahoma State University Stillwater Oklahoma USA, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 52 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 451-468 |
| Publication date | 2024-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Policy Studies Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0190-292X • E-ISSN: 1541-0072 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/psj.12522 |
| OpenAlex | W4389850469 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 38 |
In the study of the policy diffusion process, scholars have found that states adopt policies to remain competitive with one another over economic resources. But the rapid spread of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies, which treat college athletes as professionals, is not readily explained by economic competition nor other diffusion mechanisms. The NIL phenomenon points to a new dimension of competition between the states, which is more closely tied to states protecting or enhancing their reputations than it is to directly accruing economic resources. To test if NIL spread as the result of athletic reputation competition, we model the adoption of NIL legislation as a function of internal characteristics (i.e. number, value, and ranking of college football programs) and interstate dynamics (i.e. actions of football, conference, and Power 5 competitors). We test the effect of these measures alongside traditional diffusion indicators, finding that both internal and interstate indicators of athletic competition drive states to adopt and implement NIL. NIL is important to study as it has changed the landscape of amateur sports, as well as our scholarly understanding of policy diffusion in the American federal system, specifically broadening our conceptualization of the competition mechanism and developing customized measures of it
Amateur · Business · Competition (biology · Competitor analysis · Conceptualization · Economics · Football · Function (biology · Legislation · Political science · Reputation · Test (biology · Computer Science · Law · Policy Transfer and Learning · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies · Public Policy and Administration Research · Marketing
Race to the top and the diffusion of state education intervention policy in the American states
A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures
A Squire Index Update
The Politics of Diffusion
Policy Emulation or Policy Convergence? Potential Ambiguities in the Dyadic Event History Approach to State Policy Emulation
A Strategic Theory of Policy Diffusion via Intergovernmental Competition
Reassessing the “Race to the Bottom” in State Welfare Policy
Beyond Logit and Probit
Free-Riders or Competitive Races? Strategic Interaction across the American States on Tobacco Policy Making
The Initiative Process and Policy Innovation in the American States
Building a Better Speed Trap
Four Ways We Can Improve Policy Diffusion Research
Policy Diffusion
The Ties that Bind Us
Disentangling Diffusion
Policy Innovation Adoption Across the Diffusion Life Course
Spid
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and the Diffusion of Innovations
Conditional tax competition in American states
Problems (and solutions) in the measurement of policy diffusion mechanisms
The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion
States as Policy Laboratories
Without Cause or Effect
Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes
Persistent Policy Pathways
The Globalization of Liberalization
Innovation in the States
State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations
The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States
Policy Preferences and Policy Change
Welfare and the Multifaceted Decision to Move
College Football and Student Quality
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 4 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |