If Tennessee chooses state law over NIL pledge, it risks being kicked out of SEC

#177
#177
UT97Vol said:
It’s not illegal if the union agrees to it. Obviously we’re talking about hypotheticals here since there is no CBA, but a CBA can include and enforce limits on third party contracts though I acknowledge it’s complex and not easy. I don’t think we ever get to resolution on these issues unless something like that is included and agreed to by the parties with respect to NIL. To me this isn’t the biggest issue. It’s the universities athletics operating as a for profit business under the umbrella of their non-profit, tax exempt institutions. Kentucky created an LLC for athletics which looks like a first attempt to address that issue. Whether that’s enough or not I don’t know. Probably not.

Btw, DW basically came right out and said this weekend that a CBA is the only solution to these issues. I agree with that.
Click to expand...
That doesn't change the fact that it's still illegal. The union can't prohibit it's members from making money from private NIL deals.

The NFL Players Union a CBA, yet their members engage in private NIL deals all the time. Mahomes' State Farm deal comes to mind.

A group agreeing to an illegal restraint of trade dies magically make it legal.
 
#178
#178
S.C. OrangeMan said:
That doesn't change the fact that it's still illegal. The union can't prohibit it's members from making money from private NIL deals.

The NFL Players Union a CBA, yet their members engage in private NIL deals all the time. Mahomes' State Farm deal comes to mind.

A group agreeing to an illegal restraint of trade dies magically make it legal.
Click to expand...

It actually does. What do you think a CBA is? It’s like saying well since there’s a salary cap in the NFL it’s illegal because it restricts earning and compensation. So your statement is false. Third party sponsorship deals are not restricted by the NFL but they could (and probably should for college athletes) but the players (i.e. the union would have to agree to such a stipulation). It’s a non factor in the NFL because the NFL doesn’t recruit and has tampering restrictions written into their bylaws, so they would never bother to bring such a stipulation to the table because it would weaken their negotiating power for something that’s a non issue. It is an issue for college sports. If we get a CBA and college athletes agree to any limits on any thing whether it’s a salary cap, freshman comp limits, required to stand for the national anthem, whatever, etc to include third party deals then it’s a valid agreement because the people affected by it affirmed their concurrence with the stipulation. That’s the whole purpose of collective bargaining is to set the left and right limits or parameters that both sides agree to.
 
Last edited:
#179
#179
UT97Vol said:
It actually does. What do you think a CBA is? It’s like saying well since there’s a salary cap in the NFL it’s illegal because it restricts earning and compensation. So your statement is false. Third party sponsorship deals are not restricted by the NFL but they could (and probably should for college athletes) but the players (i.e. the union would have to agree to such a stipulation). It’s anon factor in the NFL because the NFL doesn’t recruit and has tampering restrictions written into their bylaws. If college athletes agree to any limits on any thing whether it’s a salary cap, freshman comp limits, required to stand for the national anthem, whatever, etc to include third party deals then it’s a valid agreement because the people affected by it affirmed their concurrence with the stipulation. That’s the whole purpose of collective bargaining is to set the left and right limits or parameters that both sides agree to.
Click to expand...
The NCAA is skeptical of a CBA because it almost certainly leads to the courts declaring college athletes "employees" and not "student athletes."

That's a critical change which would mean the player's union could and would most likely seek to do away with the mandatory "student" portion of their employment with the school. If a player wants to attend school, fine. If not, fine.

It is to the advantage of UT NOT to need to offer scholarships, tutoring, etc to players but rather have them as full-time athletes like pro athletes. If a pro wants to go to school, don't let it interfere with your job as an athlete.

Further, as employees, the "4 or 5 years and you're done" becomes a point of discussion. Most athletes never sniff the NFL, NBA, or MLB. Spending 10 years playing for the Vols in Neyland until you're 28 isn't a bad thing. Returning and getting hired as a player after 2 or 3 years in the league also might appeal to a good college player, but marginal pro player.

Again, it's VERY much to the advantage of UT to keep good, seasoned, veteran players who can never make the pros but can contribute to the Vols for several years. How many times have we seen a player graduate, never have a pro career or a very short career, and thought "Man, I wish he was not graduating....."

Those are changes UT might WELCOME in a CBA and players also.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
#180
#180
UT97Vol said:
It actually does. What do you think a CBA is? It’s like saying well since there’s a salary cap in the NFL it’s illegal because it restricts earning and compensation. So your statement is false. Third party sponsorship deals are not restricted by the NFL but they could (and probably should for college athletes) but the players (i.e. the union would have to agree to such a stipulation). It’s a non factor in the NFL because the NFL doesn’t recruit and has tampering restrictions written into their bylaws, so they would never bother to bring such a stipulation to the table because it negotiating power for something that’s a non issue. It is an issue for college sports. If we get a CBA and college athletes agree to any limits on any thing whether it’s a salary cap, freshman comp limits, required to stand for the national anthem, whatever, etc to include third party deals then it’s a valid agreement because the
UT97Vol said:
It actually does. What do you think a CBA is? It’s like saying well since there’s a salary cap in the NFL it’s illegal because it restricts earning and compensation. So your statement is false. Third party sponsorship deals are not restricted by the NFL but they could (and probably should for college athletes) but the players (i.e. the union would have to agree to such a stipulation). It’s a non factor in the NFL because the NFL doesn’t recruit and has tampering restrictions written into their bylaws, so they would never bother to bring such a stipulation to the table because it would weaken their negotiating power for something that’s a non issue. It is an issue for college sports. If we get a CBA and college athletes agree to any limits on any thing whether it’s a salary cap, freshman comp limits, required to stand for the national anthem, whatever, etc to include third party deals then it’s a valid agreement because the people affected by it affirmed their concurrence with the stipulation. That’s the whole purpose of collective bargaining is to set the left and right limits or parameters that both sides agree to.
Click to expand...

people affected by it affirmed their concurrence with the stipulation. That’s the whole purpose of collective bargaining is to set the left and right limits or parameters that both sides agree to.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Again, zero of the existing CBA's cap NIL because NIL isn't salary, it isn't pai by the league or the teams, and the leagues know that they would never win a court case about it.

The purpose of any CBA is an an agreement between the league and the players on salaries, benefits, and working conditions.

CBA's don't cover NIL because it is none of those things and the NIL collectives aren't part of the CBAs.

The lack of ANY sports CBA interfering in private NIL because that would be illegal under federal law is ok pretty good evidence that your contention is false.
 
#181
#181
S.C. OrangeMan said:
That is illegal and unworkable.

The semester ends in December. Students can enroll in another school before Christmas. No sit outs after transfers. That is illegal. No limits on transfers - again, illegal. No penalty for getting hurt. That is discriminatory.
Click to expand...
Yep. You and “SUWAVOL” are both correct. I went for the simplest, most direct fix for the current portal/transfer mess.

In any event, my opinion means nothing. Best way to screw something up is to get the gov’t / courts involved. And as a result, college football as we knew it is dead. Now, it’s the NFL D-League. Well, from FCS up.

C-N games are much more affordable anyway. And D-III has a working playoff model that has been in place for years.

Just sayin’…
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#182
#182
S.C. OrangeMan said:
No, it doesn't. Again, zero of the existing CBA's cap NIL because NIL isn't salary, it isn't pai by the league or the teams, and the leagues know that they would never win a court case about it.

The purpose of any CBA is an an agreement between the league and the players on salaries, benefits, and working conditions.

CBA's don't cover NIL because it is none of those things and the NIL collectives aren't part of the CBAs.

The lack of ANY sports CBA interfering in private NIL because that would be illegal under federal law is ok pretty good evidence that your contention is false.
Click to expand...
It may or it may not. You are taking a hardline that it’s not possible and that it’s illegal. That’s is what is false. It’s patently false. Again, if the players/athletes agree to such a stipulation it is not illegal (unless the underlying act itself is illegal like theft). Bottom line. Laws allow for the restrictions on such things as exactly this - third party sponsorships - if such relationships create conflicts, impact employee health, inconsistent with the mission of the organization just to name a few examples. In other words a CBA can restrict external sponsorships for many different reasons. And if you don’t think NIL deals can and would affect the college football workplace environment making the issue an eligible stipulation to be negotiated then I don’t know what to tell you. Here’s another example since you brought the NFL. The NFL actually does have limits on third party sponsorships predicated on limiting endorsements that are counter to the values of the NFL or if in direct competition to the NFL. So right off the bat your own argument using the NFL is demonstrated false. Endorsements also have to be approved by the NFL. Here’s the link if you want to the proof…

Partnership & Endorsement Policy

nflpa.com nflpa.com

I’m not saying it will happen. I do believe; however, it is necessary to fix the problems at the college level. Go read up on collective bargaining laws. There plenty of examples that highlight restrictions on such endorsements.
 
#183
#183
SubVet676 said:
Yep. You and “SUWAVOL” are both correct. I went for the simplest, most direct fix for the current portal/transfer mess.

In any event, my opinion means nothing. Best way to screw something up is to get the gov’t / courts involved. And as a result, college football as we knew it is dead. Now, it’s the NFL D-League. Well, from FCS up.

C-N games are much more affordable anyway. And D-III has a working playoff model that has been in place for years.

Just sayin’…
Click to expand...
I'm not opposed to C-N games at all but the quality of FB isn't there.

What needs to happen is the financially successful college brands need to split away from D-1 and form football, basketball, and baseball pro leagues. I personally think the schools should divest the pro teams but I'm open to other opinions there.

This lets D-1 survive for the most part because the NIL, "revenue sharing," etc issues go away at most schools because there's no revenue to share ESPECIALLY if the revenue schools stop playing cupcakes to fund those cupcake programs. Athletics at most D-1 schools can return to "old school" college scholarship football.

Elite schools like UT can proceed as they are headed toward CBA, player's unions, etc and a pro model and play only other pro schools.

The NCAA can possibly survive and still control D-1 and on down. The genie IS out of the bottle for NIL, etc but the market isn't there for lesser talent.

The new NCPA (pro) can control the new pro leagues.
 
#184
#184
UT97Vol said:
It may or it may not. You are taking a hardline that it’s not possible and that it’s illegal. That’s is what is false. It’s patently false. Again, if the players/athletes agree to such a stipulation it is not illegal (unless the underlying act itself is illegal like theft). Bottom line. Laws allow for the restrictions on such things as exactly this - third party sponsorships - if such relationships create conflicts, impact employee health, inconsistent with the mission of the organization just to name a few examples. In other words a CBA can restrict external sponsorships for many different reasons. And if you don’t think NIL deals can and would affect the college football workplace environment making the issue an eligible stipulation to be negotiated then I don’t know what to tell you. Here’s another example since you brought the NFL. The NFL actually does have limits on third party sponsorships predicated on limiting endorsements that are counter to the values of the NFL or if in direct competition to the NFL. So right off the bat your own argument using the NFL is demonstrated false. Endorsements also have to be approved by the NFL. Here’s the link if you want to the proof…

Partnership & Endorsement Policy

nflpa.com nflpa.com

I’m not saying it will happen. I do believe; however, it is necessary to fix the problems at the college level. Go read up on collective bargaining laws. There plenty of examples that highlight restrictions on such endorsements.
Click to expand...
And again, you're wrong. You claimed that the NFL has to approve endorsements.
They absolutely do not. Your link doesn't say what you claim it does, because it's not a NFL link. It's a players association link. The NFL and the NFL are two very different organizations. The league is not the union.

Now show me the CFB players union. You can't, because it does not exist.

Ergo, your link proves that your claim is false.
 
#185
#185
S.C. OrangeMan said:
And again, you're wrong. You claimed that the NFL has to approve endorsements.
They absolutely do not. Your link doesn't say what you claim it does, because it's not a NFL link. It's a players association link. The NFL and the NFL are two very different organizations. The league is not the union.
Click to expand...
No, the NFL can absolutely ban certain endorsement deals. It's in the CBA. It's a lot of companies/retailers, but it is a very unique group of endorsements. Players can't endorse substances or companies that manufacture substances the NFL has banned for performance enhancing purposes. And they can't endorse retailers that sell even one banned substance (like GNC for example). And given the language in the first sentence "unreasonably refuse" it sounds like there may be other avenues for clubs to refuse a player to endorse certain products. I would guess they'd be settled under Article 43 Non Injury Grievance if that is accurate.


1748180886898.png


1748181172362.png
1748181238667.png
1748181287255.png
1748181316018.png

And I keep seeing articles online about NFL players not being allowed to endorse beer and alcohol, but I haven't found the verbiage in the CBA. But I'm guessing something is out there.

www.cbssports.com

Chiefs' Patrick Mahomes outsmarts the NFL by appearing in beer commercial that's not technically about beer

NFL players aren't allowed to appear in beer commercials, but Patrick Mahomes found a loophole
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
 
#186
#186
S.C. OrangeMan said:
And again, you're wrong. You claimed that the NFL has to approve endorsements.
They absolutely do not. Your link doesn't say what you claim it does, because it's not a NFL link. It's a players association link. The NFL and the NFL are two very different organizations. The league is not the union.

Now show me the CFB players union. You can't, because it does not exist.

Ergo, your link proves that your claimis false.
Click to expand...
Good grief you’re dense. First of all I know it doesn’t exist. I said this was all hypothetical and that if players ultimately form a union under at CBA - again “if” you can understand that - NIL could be included in a CBA.

Also the NFLPA is the player union for the NFL players. Wow. Buy a clue.
 
#187
#187
S.C. OrangeMan said:
Why are you and so many others advocating for violating federal law and court case decisions? UT folks are supposed to be smarter than that!

Worse, why are there so many control freaks on this board.

And...if you've ever changed jobs, you are nauseatingly hypocritical. 🤮🤮🤮
Click to expand...
Dang man. I thought we were having a civil conversation…smh
 
  • Like
Reactions: gainesvol82
#188
#188
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Perhaps you're not familiar with Ohio v NCAA which the NCAA essentially lost? Preventing a player from playing after multiple transfers is anticompetitive and a violation of Antitrust Law.

The NCAA changed their rules after the Federal Court essentially told them to allow multiple transfers.

Other than being in violation of Federal Antitrust Law, you have a great plan. While you may not care about Federal Laws, most people do.

natlawreview.com

Antitrust—Labor Market Violations: NCAA Agrees to Stop Restricting College Athlete Transfers

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) will stop enforcing rules restricting Division I athletes from transferring from one institution to another under a consent judgment filed in an antitrust lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), ten states, and the District of...
natlawreview.com natlawreview.com
Click to expand...
.
 
#190
#190
UT97Vol said:
Good grief you’re dense. First of all I know it doesn’t exist. I said this was all hypothetical and that if players ultimately form a union under at CBA - again “if” you can understand that - NIL could be included in a CBA.

Also the NFLPA is the player union for the NFL players. Wow. Buy a clue.
Click to expand...
You argued using an example of something that doesn't exist, and then think that I'm magically the dense one. LMAO. 😂😂😂
 
#191
#191
TheDeeble said:
No, the NFL can absolutely ban certain endorsement deals. It's in the CBA. It's a lot of companies/retailers, but it is a very unique group of endorsements. Players can't endorse substances or companies that manufacture substances the NFL has banned for performance enhancing purposes. And they can't endorse retailers that sell even one banned substance (like GNC for example). And given the language in the first sentence "unreasonably refuse" it sounds like there may be other avenues for clubs to refuse a player to endorse certain products. I would guess they'd be settled under Article 43 Non Injury Grievance if that is accurate.


View attachment 744311


View attachment 744312
View attachment 744313
View attachment 744314
View attachment 744315

And I keep seeing articles online about NFL players not being allowed to endorse beer and alcohol, but I haven't found the verbiage in the CBA. But I'm guessing something is out there.

www.cbssports.com

Chiefs' Patrick Mahomes outsmarts the NFL by appearing in beer commercial that's not technically about beer

NFL players aren't allowed to appear in beer commercials, but Patrick Mahomes found a loophole
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
Click to expand...
I let you go down that path for a reason.
To see if you would use a logical fallacy to try to prove your point. You did exactly that.

That list is an Appeal to Outliers. Logical fallacy. The NFL didn't unilaterally ban all endorsements or NIL for them. They JOINTLY cane up with the list with the players union.

That has zero application to what you're arguing for college FB. You want unilateral banning of all endorsements, or alternatively, bans by a third party with the athletes getting it cranked down their throats. That's a silly case of apples and oranges to the NFL/NFLPA joint agreement.

There is absolutely no reason for any third party to try to regulate NIL for college sports. It's illegal, it's anti American, and it's control freakish.
 
#192
#192
SmokinBob said:
Dang man. I thought we were having a civil conversation…smh
Click to expand...

Cut him some slack, S.C. OM has an exceedingly weak stomach, as nauseated as he gets (based upon his posts, of course). The pain is probably what makes his hyperbole and melodrama reach such elevated levels. As much stomach acid has made it up his esophagus from all that vomiting, he'll likely sound like a Speak-n-Spell if/when whichever family member he's "representing" makes it big.
 
#193
#193
tbh said:
Cut him some slack, S.C. OM has an exceedingly weak stomach, as nauseated as he gets (based upon his posts, of course). The pain is probably what makes his hyperbole and melodrama reach such elevated levels. As much stomach acid has made it up his esophagus from all that vomiting, he'll likely sound like a Speak-n-Spell if/when whichever family member he's "representing" makes it big.
Click to expand...
That was stupid. A personal attack instead of anything intelligent. Pfft.
 
#194
#194
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Same thing I was thinking. Why are we willing to die on the hill from something we're not even benefiting from? We've proven we're not a wealthy enough program to buy our way into recruiting success like the elite programs. I could see Texas or Oregon doing this but why Tennessee?

We must have morons running the university. Cause us fighting for NIL to be unregulated makes no sense when we don't benefit from it.
Click to expand...

It does when/if N.I.L. lawsuits start being thrown around and we are at the cutting edge of paying N.I.L. (again) and aren't getting sued to death in court or having to act under the table.

UT is quickly building a reputation for having the AD leadership af the forefront of the new reality and staying steps ahead of everything taking place. We are setting the example that others follow and developing a huge reputation of being a program that is FOR THE PLAYERS. The enormity of that cannot be downplayed and our state and university believe that we can compete with anyone.

We don't have to spend the most to win, especially not once revenue sharing kicks in. We just have to be in the same ballpark (we are and will be) to compete because we will always invest big money in the QB, OT, DL and CB positions just like an NFL organization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob and S.C. OrangeMan
#195
#195
Nico ee-ah-MAH-LAY-ah-va said:
Other schools care and want to make the playing field as even as possible with NIL, but the actual SEC governing body under Sankey has their hands tied. The SEC is a private organization and is subject to all State and Federal laws. If Tennessee refuses to sign this loyalty document, then what can they do? We are a charter member and will not be removed from the conference lol. Especially since Sankey only cares about one thing: $$$. Losing Tennessee, one of the most highly watched teams in the conference, is a huge hit to the bottom line. If the money is there, then so is Tennessee.
Click to expand...

Whatever would the SEC do without our storming the field and Tony Vitello fines?
 
#197
#197
S.C. OrangeMan said:
I let you go down that path for a reason.
To see if you would use a logical fallacy to try to prove your point. You did exactly that.

That list is an Appeal to Outliers. Logical fallacy. The NFL didn't unilaterally ban all endorsements or NIL for them. They JOINTLY cane up with the list with the players union.

That has zero application to what you're arguing for college FB. You want unilateral banning of all endorsements, or alternatively, bans by a third party with the athletes getting it cranked down their throats. That's a silly case of apples and oranges to the NFL/NFLPA joint agreement.

There is absolutely no reason for any third party to try to regulate NIL for college sports. It's illegal, it's anti American, and it's control freakish.
Click to expand...

I haven't advocated for banning anything in college sports. From the start I've said they should be able to be paid for their NIL.

You: CBA doesn't interfere in NIL
Me: Posts NFL CBA article regulating some NIL
You: I was just kidding to prove a point

That's the path you're going? Try reading through the CBA to see what's what before you have to go through an awful level of backtracking when you're proven wrong.

S.C. OrangeMan said:
That doesn't change the fact that it's still illegal. The union can't prohibit it's members from making money from private NIL deals.

The NFL Players Union a CBA, yet their members engage in private NIL deals all the time. Mahomes' State Farm deal comes to mind.

A group agreeing to an illegal restraint of trade dies magically make it legal.
Click to expand...

S.C. OrangeMan said:
The purpose of any CBA is an an agreement between the league and the players on salaries, benefits, and working conditions.

CBA's don't cover NIL because it is none of those things

The lack of ANY sports CBA interfering in private NIL because that would be illegal under federal law is ok pretty good evidence that your contention is false.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#200
#200
TheDeeble said:
I haven't advocated for banning anything in college sports. From the start I've said they should be able to be paid for their NIL.

You: CBA doesn't interfere in NIL
Me: Posts NFL CBA article regulating some NIL
You: I was just kidding to prove a point

That's the path you're going? Try reading through the CBA to see what's what before you have to go through an awful level of backtracking when you're proven wrong.
Click to expand...
You are still epically confused.

What you're talking about is cherry picking.

The NFLPA CBA doesn't prevent its members from making money from NIL.

It prohibits them from making money on a few specific NIL products.

Those are two very different things, yet you're trying to conflate them.

You are claiming that a subset invalidates things that aren't in it. It clearly does not.

There's this thing called the ability to discern.
You should see about purchasing some.

And again, there is no college sports union, so there's no union to negotiate any such agreement in college anyway. Your entire line of thought here is a fantasy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top