Name,Image,and Likeness has begun

#126
#126
Majors said:
Looks like the majority will be paid by hometown small business endorsement, hometown camps and autographs.
Click to expand...
That is exactly my point also. And with that will come certain obligations to the sponsors. In other words, they will have to play to their customers. And unless you live under a rock, you can see that local business are not going to like controversy associated with their business. Yes that includes the taboo subject of flag kneeling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
#130
#130
DeerPark12 said:
Schools are allowed to prevent NIL deals that conflict with a school’s major corporate sponsor. So you’re not going to see UT athletes endorsing adidas, Kroger, Regions, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I thought that might be the case.
 
#132
#132
DeerPark12 said:
Schools are allowed to prevent NIL deals that conflict with a school’s major corporate sponsor. So you’re not going to see UT athletes endorsing adidas, Kroger, Regions, etc.
Click to expand...

Can you point us to the language or maybe the document containing that language? It makes sense to me on a larger level that schools can have some say in this, but I feel like there's a lot of either information or misinformation out there about the boundaries of school power in this new climate. Is the language contained in the language of the scholarship papers they sign? Or is it somewhere upstream on a contractual level with the administration and the sponsors?

The scenario I'm trying to puzzle through with these questions is one where a kid signs a whatever-they're-called deal with Kroger (or similar), but only makes appearances in regular clothes and does not call themselves "Tennessee running back" or say anything about "playing at Tennessee" or whatever. Or even if they did make references to Tennessee or wore a plain orange shirt or whatever -- I think I'm trying to discern what rights the schools are left after all these changes. A lot of people are asserting the "schools have no rights anymore the kids can do anything" claim but it feels like that's logically inconsistent with the AD's positions as owners of their brands, etc.

Or am I misinterpreting this? Is it more that the schools are contractually bound to address the problem if it happens? Like, it's not a legal restriction anyone can enforce on an individual student-athlete, but the players are in jeopardy of losing their scholarship and place on the team if they conflict with a sponsor deal Tennessee has? Or is it more that Tennessee could take legal action against third parties if someone tried to do an end-around with players, sort of a defacto team sponsorship without actually engaging the school on the sponsorship ... ? There's so many permutations here were I feel like schools must be given some leeway to push back when it comes to their actual brand, but right now it seems like it's the wild west out there.

Sorry to spam you with so much, but expert opinions on this are few and far between.
 
#136
#136
Voltopia said:
Can you point us to the language or maybe the document containing that language? It makes sense to me on a larger level that schools can have some say in this, but I feel like there's a lot of either information or misinformation out there about the boundaries of school power in this new climate. Is the language contained in the language of the scholarship papers they sign? Or is it somewhere upstream on a contractual level with the administration and the sponsors?

The scenario I'm trying to puzzle through with these questions is one where a kid signs a whatever-they're-called deal with Kroger (or similar), but only makes appearances in regular clothes and does not call themselves "Tennessee running back" or say anything about "playing at Tennessee" or whatever. Or even if they did make references to Tennessee or wore a plain orange shirt or whatever -- I think I'm trying to discern what rights the schools are left after all these changes. A lot of people are asserting the "schools have no rights anymore the kids can do anything" claim but it feels like that's logically inconsistent with the AD's positions as owners of their brands, etc.

Or am I misinterpreting this? Is it more that the schools are contractually bound to address the problem if it happens? Like, it's not a legal restriction anyone can enforce on an individual student-athlete, but the players are in jeopardy of losing their scholarship and place on the team if they conflict with a sponsor deal Tennessee has? Or is it more that Tennessee could take legal action against third parties if someone tried to do an end-around with players, sort of a defacto team sponsorship without actually engaging the school on the sponsorship ... ? There's so many permutations here were I feel like schools must be given some leeway to push back when it comes to their actual brand, but right now it seems like it's the wild west out there.

Sorry to spam you with so much, but expert opinions on this are few and far between.
Click to expand...

I can't point you to a document, I can only tell you that's what Tennessee's policy is. It's the same at most schools, from what I've read and gathered from those in the industry. At Tennessee, it's only companies that fall under the "Corporate Partner" banner, which is Nike, First Horizon, Farm Bureau, Coca Cola, and Food City and UT Medical Center. There are also restrictions on alcohol and gambling, which fall under NCAA restrictions.

I don't know what the punishments would end up being.

Student-athletes cannot use school logos in NIL promotions, including wearing team gear for photo shoots, unless there is also a rights fee paid to the school through the licensing office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voltopia and 37620VOL
#141
#141
the only NIL deal im interested in is when the athletes jerseys are allowed to be sold just never feels right about how many Lady Vol fans could never purchase a Candace Parker TN jersey but we could for the football players
 
#145
#145
CannonFodder said:
A lot of players will earn more in college than in the NFL. This will create a new category of player.
Click to expand...

It will also provide more incentive to finish out their eligibility, and to not change schools since they would either lose or have to redo their endorsements.

Conversely, it would be easy for businesses to say, "Hey, if you come to Local U. we will give you a bigger deal than they are giving you so get in the portal young man."

It is a whole new world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyVols_WBK
#146
#146
Voluble2 said:
It will also provide more incentive to finish out their eligibility, and to not change schools since they would either lose or have to redo their endorsements.

Conversely, it would be easy for businesses to say, "Hey, if you come to Local U. we will give you a bigger deal than they are giving you so get in the portal young man."

It is a whole new world.
Click to expand...

Money ruins everything. This is semi-pro sports now. It no longer has a place in the university system since they basically spend all revenues received. The athletic departments add nothing significant to the university but are a huge responsibility and burden to the administration, who were hired as educators. Under current conditions these are sports franchises with universities attached.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JarFly
#147
#147
I hope this doesn't turn into another money drain for fans. I can see NIL revenue becoming a competitive battleground in recruiting and portal activity as players migrate to those schools whose fans have deep pockets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FabSmokyVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top