NIL contract structure

#2
#2
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol
#4
#4
That begs a question

Is it legal for a government entity (university) to compete with a private business, and essentially drive them out of the market?

Technically the postal service competes with UPS and FedEx

Medicare competes somewhat with private insurance so yes govt entities compete with private sector. Drive them out? The govt is usually a model of inefficiency so not really
 
#5
#5
Nice info, but these appear to be EMPLOYEE contracts.

The very next step is for the players to organize to negotiate more compensation and better working conditions as other pro athletes and contract employees often do. Though the schools may be signing the contracts, if the NCAA is setting the "most you can compensate" limit the NCAA is a "joint employer" who will have to negotiate that "salary cap" like the NFL, NBA, etc.

I get that the House settlement is going to save the NCAA and schools a lot of money in lawsuits for "back pay" for illegally restricting NIL for many years but I can't imagine these contracts lead to anything but a very quick transition to the pro sports model.

For good or for bad, if House is approved (and I'm doubtful without some way built in for athletes to negotiate "the cap") we'll be watching pro ball in Neyland, sadly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#6
#6
Technically the postal service competes with UPS and FedEx

Medicare competes somewhat with private insurance so yes govt entities compete with private sector. Drive them out? The govt is usually a model of inefficiency so not really
However, those things are not mandated by a private organization like the NCAA that may not have the legal authority to force that on the 3rd party private side of the equation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol
#7
#7
Nice info, but these appear to be EMPLOYEE contracts.

The very next step is for the players to organize to negotiate more compensation and better working conditions as other pro athletes and contract employees often do. Though the schools may be signing the contracts, if the NCAA is setting the "most you can compensate" limit the NCAA is a "joint employer" who will have to negotiate that "salary cap" like the NFL, NBA, etc.

I get that the House settlement is going to save the NCAA and schools a lot of money in lawsuits for "back pay" for illegally restricting NIL for many years but I can't imagine these contracts lead to anything but a very quick transition to the pro sports model.

For good or for bad, if House is approved (and I'm doubtful without some way built in for athletes to negotiate "the cap") we'll be watching pro ball in Neyland, sadly.
The only thing for certain is that the litigation has barely begun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol and OldLofter
#8
#8
That begs a question

Is it legal for a government entity (university) to compete with a private business, and essentially drive them out of the market?

You’ve lost me. Who is in competition? Do you mean the collectives and the universities?

To me it would seem they’re working together
 
#9
#9
You’ve lost me. Who is in competition? Do you mean the collectives and the universities?

To me it would seem they’re working together
The proposed settlement in the House case, if carried out, will put university based NIL in direct competition with private NIL collectives, booster clubs, and individual boosters.

Given that most of the P4 schools are public universities, that seems to be putting them in direct competition with the private sector. It also is explicitly anti competitive, as it seems to drive private NIL entities out of the market.

That sounds like another Sherman Antitrust Act violation to me. It also conflicts with the injunction in the Tennessee vs NCAA case.

mo litigation, mo litigation, mo litigation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol
#10
#10
The proposed settlement in the House case, if carried out, will put university based NIL in direct competition with private NIL collectives, booster clubs, and individual boosters.

Given that most of the P4 schools are public universities, that seems to be putting them in direct competition with the private sector. It also is explicitly anti competitive, as it seems to drive private NIL entities out of the market.

That sounds like another Sherman Antitrust Act violation to me. It also conflicts with the injunction in the Tennessee vs NCAA case.

No litigation, no litigation, mo kitigation.

How is it direct competition? That’s where you’re losing me. The Chiefs aren’t competing with State Farm. Sypre isn’t competing with UT.

That’s what I’m confused about.
 
#12
#12
It’s enough to make a man pine for the days when only the coach got paid a million bucks and the players had to content themselves with a hundred dollar handshake here and there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#13
#13
Its a matter of semantics at the end of the day. Collective's are a separate entity setup to provide avenues for college athletes to use their NIL to get paid for. College money currently is coming from boosters which technically is still illegal. The problem is there is no governing body that has any authority at the moment to say if this is legal or not.

NIL has become the new method of cheating. NIL was supposed to be for paying someone if the university sold a jersey or picture of the player and paid the player a portion of those revenues. It's completely out of control now and no one at the moment has the stones to change it. It all started when O'bannon sued after is USC after his playing days and won/finally settled in 2016.
 
#15
#15
"Buyout provisions exist as well. An NIL agent told CBS Sports that if a player transfers, they would seek to have the new school cover the remainder of what is owed to the original school."

Interesting
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmyandjoes
#16
#16
Its a matter of semantics at the end of the day. Collective's are a separate entity setup to provide avenues for college athletes to use their NIL to get paid for. College money currently is coming from boosters which technically is still illegal. The problem is there is no governing body that has any authority at the moment to say if this is legal or not.

NIL has become the new method of cheating. NIL was supposed to be for paying someone if the university sold a jersey or picture of the player and paid the player a portion of those revenues. It's completely out of control now and no one at the moment has the stones to change it. It all started when O'bannon sued after is USC after his playing days and won/finally settled in 2016.
NIL is not cheating. The old NCAA rules against it were not just cheating they were patiently violations of federal law.

Your claim is backwards from reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol
#17
#17
If the NCAA gets what they want, they schools' NIL in direct competition with Spyre and other private NIL sponsors.

The schools will be paying players to play. That’s not NIL. The Chiefs play Mahomes to play. State Farm pays for his NIL.

Those two are not in competition
 
#18
#18
Its a matter of semantics at the end of the day. Collective's are a separate entity setup to provide avenues for college athletes to use their NIL to get paid for. College money currently is coming from boosters which technically is still illegal. The problem is there is no governing body that has any authority at the moment to say if this is legal or not.

NIL has become the new method of cheating. NIL was supposed to be for paying someone if the university sold a jersey or picture of the player and paid the player a portion of those revenues. It's completely out of control now and no one at the moment has the stones to change it. It all started when O'bannon sued after is USC after his playing days and won/finally settled in 2016.

How’s it out of control
 
#20
#20
That begs a question

Is it legal for a government entity (university) to compete with a private business, and essentially drive them out of the market?
Must be since some cities governments (Chattanooga) build hotels?

Also, many government owned electric companies get government grants to build fiber optic networks then compete with CATV and telecommunications companies who have to build their own networks.
 
#21
#21
The schools will be paying players to play. That’s not NIL. The Chiefs play Mahomes to play. State Farm pays for his NIL.

Those two are not in competition
The problem is that the NCAA is disingenuously calling revenue sharing "NIL" and intentionally trying to muddy the waters legally and in public oerception.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol
#22
#22
Don’t they do that for professors, maintenance workers, IT professionals, etc. everyday?
Must be since some cities governments (Chattanooga) build hotels?

Also, many government owned electric companies get government grants to build fiber optic networks then compete with CATV and telecommunications companies who have to build their own networks.
How do electric companies compete with CATV and telecomm companies? Different markets and services there.
 
#23
#23
Don’t they do that for professors, maintenance workers, IT professionals, etc. everyday?
Competing for personnel isn't competing for market share or trying to drive the competition out of the market.

The NCAA trying to drive private NIL collectives out of the market is a very different kettle of fish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KHVol
#24
#24
Competing for personnel isn't competing for market share or trying to drive the competition out of the market.

The NCAA trying to drive private NIL collectives out of the market is a very different kettle of fish.
Look up epb in Chattanooga. City owned Internet, cable TV, etc.

They compete directly with other providers.
 
#25
#25
Competing for personnel isn't competing for market share or trying to drive the competition out of the market.

The NCAA trying to drive private NIL collectives out of the market is a very different kettle of fish.

How can they prohibit the private guys? Even if they get in the direct pay mode? Why would they want to?
 

VN Store



Back
Top