Was not aware of NIL rules like this

[HeavenUniversity]

10.5 million dollar figures being thrown around! Yikes !

Michigan’s $10.5 million NIL offer for in-state high school football star not expected to complete recruit’s flip to Wolverines | Sporting News

Michigan is going all out for a recruit who's not predicted to flip to the Wolverines.

www.sportingnews.com

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The NCAA cannot control "true" NIL. What we've seen thus far is pay for play. That's what this settlement seeks to limit.

The states, not the NCAA, determine NIL rules. Just because Congress may provide an Antitrust Agreement, the pro leagues have very little control over NIL deals for pro athletes.

The NCAA isn't getting NIL control. They can split it with the schools and collectives but there's not an agreement with individuals not to sue the NCAA to make whatever NIL deal they can get. Schools may not sue, states may not sue, but any athlete you know who might be coming up isn't part of that settlement.

The days of the NCAA controlling the private financial lives of athletes is over. Either make them employees and negotiate with the union or leave them alone privately.

 

[ntxVOL]

The states, not the NCAA, determine NIL rules. Just because Congress may provide an Antitrust Agreement, the pro leagues have very little control over NIL deals for pro athletes.

The NCAA isn't getting NIL control. They can split it with the schools and collectives but there's not an agreement with individuals not to sue the NCAA to make whatever NIL deal they can get. Schools may not sue, states may not sue, but any athlete you know who might be coming up isn't part of that settlement.

The days of the NCAA controlling the private financial lives of athletes is over. Either make them employees and negotiate with the union or leave them alone privately.

Ok, this agreement doesn't seek to try to control NIL. It's an attempt to eliminate the booster supported collectives as they currently exist.

Athletes may still pursue all the NIL deals they want but the NCAA will be watching to ensure there's no booster hanky panky going on.

Will it work? That's a good question and still some details to hammer out as far as exactly how it will work.

That's really it in a nutshell in regards to collectives and NIL. Many users on this very site have been clamoring for this exact thing.

 

[FranklinVFL]

They are taking about the new deal, that needs congressional approval, that begins in the 2025/26 school year. The schools will be paying the NIL and there will be a limit. Evidently, the Vols are over that limit.

Not sure how many different ways this can be said.

It is 100% unconstitutional for the NCAA to restrict NIL earnings.

To pay salaries to players, and impose a salary cap or maximum payment amount, would also be 100% unconstitutional unless a players union was formed with a collective bargaining agreement.

Otherwise it’s limiting commerce and earnings.

 

[ntxVOL]

Not sure how many different ways this can be said.

It is 100% unconstitutional for the NCAA to restrict NIL earnings.

To pay salaries to players, and impose a salary cap or maximum payment amount, would also be 100% unconstitutional unless a players union was formed with a collective bargaining agreement.

Otherwise it’s limiting commerce and earnings.

Not sure how many times I have to say this, the NCAA is not going to restrict "true" NIL. Athletes will still be free to pursue all the NIL they want.

This agreement attempts to do away with booster supported collectives as they currently exist and to make sure any NIL deals the athletes do pursue are really "true" NIL deals. Joe Bob booster isn't going to pay an athlete some egregious amount of money to do a couple of commercials for his local car dealership.

Schools will be capped as far as how much they pay athletes, but that's not NIL. That money is a revenue share agreement that essentially takes the place of what the collectives are currently paying.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Ok, this agreement doesn't seek to try to control NIL. It's an attempt to eliminate the booster supported collectives as they currently exist.

Athletes may still pursue all the NIL deals they want but the NCAA will be watching to ensure there's no booster hanky panky going on.

Will it work? That's a good question and still some details to hammer out as far as exactly how it will work.

That's really it in a nutshell in regards to collectives and NIL. Many users on this very site have been clamoring for this exact thing.

The NCAA is trying to backdoor get control of private NIL by calling revenue sharing "NIL". That's dishonest. They are two very different things.

They can't decide who funds private NIL or how, regardless of if it's fine by the athlete, an agent, a booster, or a collective.

Clamoring for something that violates the law isn't smart.

Conflating revenue sharing by the school and NIL from a collective like Spyre is downright dishonest.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Ok, this agreement doesn't seek to try to control NIL. It's an attempt to eliminate the booster supported collectives as they currently exist.

Athletes may still pursue all the NIL deals they want but the NCAA will be watching to ensure there's no booster hanky panky going on.

Will it work? That's a good question and still some details to hammer out as far as exactly how it will work.

That's really it in a nutshell in regards to collectives and NIL. Many users on this very site have been clamoring for this exact thing.

Any attempt by the NCAA to control the NIL market, essentially trying to "cap" the NIL salaries of athletes, is simply illegal without forming a pro league and negotiating salary caps. This settlement is to try to limit the lawsuits of previous athletes because the NCAA was breaking the law in preventing NIL in the first place and not compensating athletes while making millions.

They're not going to try to limit NIL outside payments again because the Supreme Court told them "the NCAA is not above the law" and an Antitrust Exemption DOES NOTHING to limit outside NIL. The lawsuit agreement, allowing schools to have NIL payments, keeps them from getting sued in the future for not compensating athletes because "suddenly" the schools CAN compensate them with NIL.

The NCAA CANNOT AND WILL NOT limit collectives or whatever else a school wants to arrange outside of the official school money as NIL deals to supplement the "school cap." They can't keep the deals from being essentially pay to play NOW and they're actually SANCTIONING pay to play NIL via the schools with this deal or do you feel players will be compensated based on an actual NIL value by the schools? Don't be ridiculous. The school NIL will be pay to play.

 

[ntxVOL]

Any attempt by the NCAA to control the NIL market, essentially trying to "cap" the NIL salaries of athletes, is simply illegal without forming a pro league and negotiating salary caps. This settlement is to try to limit the lawsuits of previous athletes because the NCAA was breaking the law in preventing NIL in the first place and not compensating athletes while making millions.

They're not going to try to limit NIL outside payments again because the Supreme Court told them "the NCAA is not above the law" and an Antitrust Exemption DOES NOTHING to limit outside NIL. The lawsuit agreement, allowing schools to have NIL payments, keeps them from getting sued in the future for not compensating athletes because "suddenly" the schools CAN compensate them with NIL.

The NCAA CANNOT AND WILL NOT limit collectives or whatever else a school wants to arrange outside of the official school money as NIL deals to supplement the "school cap." They can't keep the deals from being essentially pay to play NOW and they're actually SANCTIONING pay to play NIL via the schools with this deal or do you feel players will be compensated based on an actual NIL value by the schools? Don't be ridiculous. The school NIL will be pay to play.

Of course what the schools pay will be pay for play but it's not NIL. It doesn't pretend to be, it is a revenue share.

What the collectives are doing now is pretending to be NIL. That won't be allowed under this agreement which, again, the schools have agreed.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Of course what the schools pay will be pay for play but it's not NIL. It doesn't pretend to be, it is a revenue share.

What the collectives are doing now is pretending to be NIL. That won't be allowed under this agreement which, again, the schools have agreed.

From a law review of the agreement:

"Under the preliminarily approved settlement, enforcement authority over third-party NIL deals will no longer extend to all third parties, including broadly defined boosters. Instead, restrictions will focus only on groups "of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools," such as collectives. Any NIL deals involving these "associated entities or individuals" must be approved through a third-party clearinghouse."

So, what they're doing is changing the NIL money from collectives back to boosters who can't be controlled. Not exactly running it underground, but they can't stop a specific booster from providing a "pay for play" NIL, only the collectives. It's just shifting the buckets where the money comes from. The NCAA couldn't effectively enforce illegal payments previously and they are not even asking anymore to enforce 3rd party NILs, only make them look like they're further from the school which won't be hard.

The NCAA has lost. And really lost by calling it revenue sharing because why revenue share with someone who plays sports from which you make millions? Because those athletes are employees making you money.

I hope we can agree that this is a razor nick dot band-aid on a sucking chest wound?

 

[ntxVOL]

From a law review of the agreement:

"Under the preliminarily approved settlement, enforcement authority over third-party NIL deals will no longer extend to all third parties, including broadly defined boosters. Instead, restrictions will focus only on groups "of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools," such as collectives. Any NIL deals involving these "associated entities or individuals" must be approved through a third-party clearinghouse."

So, what they're doing is changing the NIL money from collectives back to boosters who can't be controlled. Not exactly running it underground, but they can't stop a specific booster from providing a "pay for play" NIL, only the collectives. It's just shifting the buckets where the money comes from. The NCAA couldn't effectively enforce illegal payments previously and they are not even asking anymore to enforce 3rd party NILs, only make them look like they're further from the school which won't be hard.

The NCAA has lost. And really lost by calling it revenue sharing because why revenue share with someone who plays sports from which you make millions? Because those athletes are employees making you money.

I hope we can agree that this is a razor nick dot band-aid on a sucking chest wound?

I think they hope to keep the boosters in line and that's why they are seeking the antitrust exemption. I'm as skeptical as you. If anything, we go back to the old bagmen, the only difference being the players will get paid above the table as well.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I think they hope to keep the boosters in line and that's why they are seeking the antitrust exemption. I'm as skeptical as you. If anything, we go back to the old bagmen, the only difference being the players will get paid above the table as well.

The real problem is the lawsuits already in the system asking the courts to declare players employees and the USCw attempt by players to unionize. USCw is a Big Ten school now and the NCAA will have a hard time ignoring that.

I've been saying schools need to get out of the pro sports business for several years now. It was great fun and entertainment but universities shouldn't be running pro sports franchises.

 

[S.C. OrangeMan]

Of course what the schools pay will be pay for play but it's not NIL. It doesn't pretend to be, it is a revenue share.

What the collectives are doing now is pretending to be NIL. That won't be allowed under this agreement which, again, the schools have agreed.

It's not pretending. It's pay for whatever goods or services they collectives say it is.

That clause in the house case is going to get **** down in federal court, because it violates several federal court decisions. That includes the injunction in the Tennessee vs NCAA case about Nico's NIL deal.