‘23 CA QB Nicholaus Iamaleava (Tennessee)

[sjt18]

But we know the following, which is in the article:

"the contract explicitly states, “nothing in this Agreement constitutes any form of inducement for (the athlete) to enroll at any school and/or join any athletic team.” There is no mention of any specific university, only that he be “enrolled at an NCAA member institution and a member of the football team at such institution,” ostensibly to avoid violating the NCAA’s pay-for-play rule."

So we know they can't turn around and make enrolling or staying a particular school a condition of payment under the contract or an event triggering some sort of penalty/punitive measure.

We deal with a lot of contracts in my business. Both sides are able to write protections into the agreement for themselves. NIL cannot say that a player must sign with a particular school. But why can it not say that the NIL must provide value to the company in particular geographic areas? Or within particular businesses or other organizations? I think you tie them to a school by tying the NIL to a particular area.

 

[Skullbone]

 

[Orange_Crush]

We deal with a lot of contracts in my business. Both sides are able to write protections into the agreement for themselves. NIL cannot say that a player must sign with a particular school. But why can it not say that the NIL must provide value to the company in particular geographic areas? Or within particular businesses or other organizations? I think you tie them to a school by tying the NIL to a particular area.

Apparently because judges see through intents per issues (consequences) that aren't mentioned in the contract, neither party of the contract took issue with, but a third party (NCAA/UT) may like or dislike.

It's kind of like if you took out a mortgage, agreed to pay back $5,000/mo and then the judge nulled the contract because your current job took issue with the unintended consequence that you had to take a better paying job to make the payment.

ETA: Now, does anyone think the NCAA will take a University to court in the above scenario, considering the supreme court opinion that's brought all this on? Would the NCAA really go to court and say, "We're trying to reach into this college athlete's pocket due to a gray area that isn't mentioned in the contract"?

 

[Voltime123]

Apparently because judges see through intents per issues (consequences) that aren't mentioned in the contract, neither party of the contract took issue with, but a third party (NCAA/UT) may like or dislike.

It's kind of like if you took out a mortgage, agreed to pay back $5,000/mo and then the judge nulled the contract because your current job took issue with the unintended consequence that you had to take a better paying job to make the payment.

No, unless there is specifically stated wording in the bylaws which combats it, judges have no legal authority on the matter

 

[UTVols18]

this kid is the reason we are signing Nico, cant convince me otherwise.

I walked out of the arena next to him and two phi mu’s said “OMG Nico we love you please come to UTK” I think that helped too lol

 

[Devo182]

Would move up to #10 with Nico with just 5 commits

 

[volbeast33]

Apparently because judges see through intents per issues (consequences) that aren't mentioned in the contract, neither party of the contract took issue with, but a third party (NCAA/UT) may like or dislike.

It's kind of like if you took out a mortgage, agreed to pay back $5,000/mo and then the judge nulled the contract because your current job took issue with the unintended consequence that you had to take a better paying job to make the payment.

I don’t understand why he can’t understand this concept.

 

[volfaninpa]

I'm here for the positive distraction away from the basketball team.

 

[butchna]

That's occurred to me as well.

Our lives our hours HIS waste…all over it.

 

[F0Rt_V0L]

 

[Orange_Crush]

We deal with a lot of contracts in my business. Both sides are able to write protections into the agreement for themselves. NIL cannot say that a player must sign with a particular school. But why can it not say that the NIL must provide value to the company in particular geographic areas? Or within particular businesses or other organizations? I think you tie them to a school by tying the NIL to a particular area.

"One of our primary sponsors is the local Mercedes dealer who mandates that he be seen driving a G Wagon about town as described in section... He is to reside in sponsor-X's apartment complex as his primary residence..."

 

[mrmax86]

There it is.

 

[sjt18]

Apparently because judges see through intents per issues (consequences) that aren't mentioned in the contract, neither party of the contract took issue with, but a third party (NCAA/UT) may like or dislike.

It's kind of like if you took out a mortgage, agreed to pay back $5,000/mo and then the judge nulled the contract because your current job took issue with the unintended consequence that you had to take a better paying job to make the payment.

I honestly don't think so. A former company in a small town wanted its management to live within and support the two school districts where its plants were located. They accomplished that for most of their managers by requiring them to live within 20 minutes of the plant where they worked.

Spyre if that's one of the entities could simply say that NIL's it sign only have value within a certain geographic area. Ostensibly, someone they sign hoping to see at UT could sign with Vandy, Memphis, MTSU, Chattanooga, etc. So there could be no claim that the contract was exclusive to one school.

I'm not honestly sure what kind of cooperation can occur between the school and NIL company. And though many here think of themselves as experts on the topic... I sincerely doubt they do either. We won't know those things until someone tries them and it goes through the NCAA/legal process.

 

[rjd970]

There is probably a team of lawyers working this NIL stuff. It’s hilarious to me that some folks on here are arguing that we are breaking the rules.

At the end of the day the athlete is getting paid to have his NIL used in a certain region. In order to do that it only makes sense to attend and play at a certain school. But nobody is paying or getting paid to solely for an athlete play football at a certain school.

Seems to me the only exposure UT would have in that scenario would be if the athlete decided to just quit playing football altogether and live in Knoxville. I would assume there would be some sort of protection there as well that doesn’t violate NCAA rules, however unlikely that scenario is.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

BOOOOOOOM!!!!

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Biggest boom ever!!!!

 

[EternalVFL]

BM

 

[Joe Dirt]

 

[Govolsman98]

BOOOOMMMM!

 

[KPT_VFL]

BOOM GAME CHANGER!!!

 

[Chuckie]

I'll allow it.

 

[Jimmy Football]

What??? BOOOOM!!!!!

Totally unexpected, right @Jackcrevol?

 

[nicksjuzunk]

 

[jpope9]

HELLL YESSS