CSC wins NIL arbitration case

#1

WillisWG

I don't like radicals left or right!
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
23,653
Likes
57,755
#1

Many programs are bridging the gap by arranging "above-the-cap" payments to players -- ostensibly endorsement deals between players and boosters or other "associated entities" that function in reality as extra payroll dollars.

Some schools have relied on marketing partners such as Playfly and apparel companies such as Nike or Adidas for some of their above-the-cap payments. Nebraska, for example, revamped its contract with Playfly last December in a deal that would send less money directly to the school if Playfly promised to invest millions of dollars into NIL opportunities for Cornhuskers athletes.

One of the CSC's main functions is to evaluate deals between athletes and any associated entity of their school to decide if they are legitimate endorsement opportunities. In the first case testing that power, an arbitrator ruled that the new enforcement group had appropriately applied the rules and that the Nebraska contracts were "warehousing" deals -- a prohibited type of payment in which a company purchases the rights to use the player's likeness in the future but doesn't provide specific information about how it intends to use those rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATCVolinmn
#2
#2

An unsigned sample of the agreement Playfly provided to Nebraska players requires the player to dedicate a certain number of hours of work and social media posts before the end of 2026 but does not include any specific events or products the athlete would be promoting, according to a copy of the contract obtained by ESPN.

A parent of one of the Nebraska players told ESPN he was concerned the deal looked "thin" on specific requirements when he first saw it. He said he felt the football team had "outsourced their critical thinking" to Playfly, which is testing the limits of the CSC's rules.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ATCVolinmn

Advertisement



Back
Top