Objections filed on House vs NCAA

#26
#26
Doubtful, because it puts the NCAA and the clearinghouse in the position of interfering in a private business arrangement between two third private entities. NIL can't be capped by the NCAA or a school because the schools don't pay it.
Not really. Think about it.

Say the FBS universities all agree to an NIL cap per school: each institution can have players on roster up to (just making up a number here) $100M in total reportable NIL. Meanwhile, an NIL cooperative at one of those institutions, say Spyre in Knoxville, is free to enter into any contract agreement with any player it desires. There is no external restriction on the free exchange between Sypre and players. Spyre is not bound by the $100M limit; it just can't have all its players enrolled at the same school, if it spends more.

But Spyre no longer WANTS to pay more than $100M to players, because it (a) wants only to help Tennessee, and (b) is no longer in open-ended competition for talent with the other co-ops supporting other schools. So what is, in effect, a collective salary cap holds without the NCAA, conferences, or universities interfering in private NIL deals.

And this doesn't require any action by the US Congress, afaik.

It's actually a fairly elegant "solution"

Of course, we'll be right back to the days of cheating by paying under the table, and the best cheaters (say "Bama," everyone) will once again have advantage.

But it ostensibly solves the runaway NIL problem.

Go Vols!
 
Last edited:
#27
#27
Making changes to the transfer portal, IMO, is the best way to help fix this wild wild west situation. I'm sure they are legal issues to that also but not as many as NIL.
 
#28
#28
NIL today isn't being used in the spirit of what NIL is.
It's currently nothing but pay to play.
Only a couple guys have any true NIL value and those are Manning, Sanders kids and that's only because of the family name that allows them to do nationwide commercials.
Don't get me wrong they have some NIL value but IMO not what some are getting.
Heck I thought I'd at least see a Nico commercial pimping Pilot gas stations or something on this end of the state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
#29
#29
...Spyre is not bound by the $100M limit; it just can't have all its players enrolled at the same school, if it spends more.

....

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point here, but the NCAA dictating/interfering with how Spyre chooses and engages with it's clients and customers is clearly in violation of antitrust laws. The NCAA is not a government agency and does not have authority to regulate commerce in any way. They cannot enter into a contract with schools that would prevent private businesses from operating as they see fit. That is the sheer definition of market manipulation, because then they can indirectly control market valuation. There is no scenario where that holds up to judicial scrutiny. You cannot tell Spyre where and how they can do business, as long as what they are doing is legal.

The NCAA cannot make Spyre engage with clients at other schools if Spyre sees no business value in doing so.

The NFL and the NFLPA collectively bargain rules around endorsements, but importantly, they cannot limit how much a player can make, and cannot lock an agency out of doing business with a player, no matter what team the player is contracted with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#30
#30
NIL today isn't being used in the spirit of what NIL is.
It's currently nothing but pay to play.
Only a couple guys have any true NIL value and those are Manning, Sanders kids and that's only because of the family name that allows them to do nationwide commercials.
Don't get me wrong they have some NIL value but IMO not what some are getting.
Heck I thought I'd at least see a Nico commercial pimping Pilot gas stations or something on this end of the state.
There is no such thing as "the spirit of NIL".
You don't get to control someone else's fair market value. The free market does that. It's exactly what's happening.
 
#31
#31
Making changes to the transfer portal, IMO, is the best way to help fix this wild wild west situation. I'm sure they are legal issues to that also but not as many as NIL.
The NCAA has admitted that they don't even have a rule requiring that the portal must be used. They r said that athletes can transfer whenever they wish, without penalty.

In the case of the Lucas kid that transferred to Miami without using the portal, Wisconsin is withholding his transcripts. He's suing. Wisconsin said that Lucas was "contracted to two years" due to revenue sharing. There hasn't been a dime of revenue shared.

That gives him a strong civil case, the potential for monetary damages, and the possibility of criminal charges against Wisconsin administrators for fraud.

 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeBeachVol
#32
#32
Not really. Think about it.

Say the FBS universities all agree to an NIL cap per school: each institution can have players on roster up to (just making up a number here) $100M in total reportable NIL. Meanwhile, an NIL cooperative at one of those institutions, say Spyre in Knoxville, is free to enter into any contract agreement with any player it desires. There is no external restriction on the free exchange between Sypre and players. Spyre is not bound by the $100M limit; it just can't have all its players enrolled at the same school, if it spends more.

But Spyre no longer WANTS to pay more than $100M to players, because it (a) wants only to help Tennessee, and (b) is no longer in open-ended competition for talent with the other co-ops supporting other schools. So what is, in effect, a collective salary cap holds without the NCAA, conferences, or universities interfering in private NIL deals.

And this doesn't require any action by the US Congress, afaik.

It's actually a fairly elegant "solution"

Of course, we'll be right back to the days of cheating by paying under the table, and the best cheaters (say "Bama," everyone) will once again have advantage.

But it ostensibly solves the runaway NIL problem.

Go Vols!
The universities can't cap either individual or collective NIL because they don't pay it. It's not salary, ergo a salary cap cannot apply to it.

It's not elegant, it doesn't solve anything, and it violates the Simpson Antitrust Act.
 
#33
#33
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeBeachVol
#34
#34
Maybe I am misunderstanding your point here, but the NCAA dictating/interfering with how Spyre chooses and engages with it's clients and customers is clearly in violation of antitrust laws. The NCAA is not a government agency and does not have authority to regulate commerce in any way. They cannot enter into a contract with schools that would prevent private businesses from operating as they see fit. That is the sheer definition of market manipulation, because then they can indirectly control market valuation. There is no scenario where that holds up to judicial scrutiny. You cannot tell Spyre where and how they can do business, as long as what they are doing is legal.

The NCAA cannot make Spyre engage with clients at other schools if Spyre sees no business value in doing so.

The NFL and the NFLPA collectively bargain rules around endorsements, but importantly, they cannot limit how much a player can make, and cannot lock an agency out of doing business with a player, no matter what team the player is contracted with.
I think you do misunderstand. If you read the scenario I described again, you will not find the NCAA dictating to or interfering with Spyre. Doesn't even address Spyre or other collectives. The NCAA is merely coordinating an agreement among the universities not to exceed $100M (arbitrarily chosen amount just for this example) in their rosters.

Spyre is free to sign as many contracts as they choose, of any value, with as many clients/employees as they wish. But if they engage in more than $100M worth of NIL contracts, some of their employees are going to have to go to a different university than others. Because no single school will let them all in.

As an EFFECT of that, Spyre (who only want to support Tennessee) will voluntarily choose to stop spending at the $100M limit, so that it can send all its talent to the school it favors.

And that is very different from the NCAA (or conferences, or schools) dictating or interfering.

The universities can't cap either individual or collective NIL because they don't pay it. It's not salary, ergo a salary cap cannot apply to it.

It's not elegant, it doesn't solve anything, and it violates the Simpson Antitrust Act.
The universities aren't capping any player or collective's NIL contracts. They're capping instead their own rosters. Which they are entirely free to do.

As for whether this approach violates Antitrust law, idk. I'm no lawyer. But it doesn't seem to, from a layman's perspective. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Go Vols!
 
Last edited:
#35
#35
I think you do misunderstand. If you read the scenario I described again, you will not find the NCAA dictating to or interfering with Spyre. Doesn't even address Spyre or other collectives. The NCAA is merely coordinating an agreement among the universities not to exceed $100M (arbitrarily chosen amount just for this example) in their rosters.

Spyre is free to sign as many contracts as they choose, of any value, with as many clients/employees as they wish. But if they engage in more than $100M worth of NIL contracts, some of their employees are going to have to go to a different university than others. Because no single school will let them all in.

As an EFFECT of that, Spyre (who only want to support Tennessee) will voluntarily choose to stop spending at the $100M limit, so that it can send all its talent to the school it favors.

And that is very different from the NCAA (or conferences, or schools) dictating or interfering.


The universities aren't capping any player or collective's NIL contracts. They're capping instead their own rosters. Which they are entirely free to do.

Go Vols!
That's not capping. It's setting a budget and not exceeding it.
 
#36
#36
That's not capping. It's setting a budget and not exceeding it.
I won't argue semantics with you. Whether they're 'capping' their roster or 'setting a limit and not exceeding it,' (which sounds like putting a cap on it to me).

It's a meaningless dive down a rabbit hole of semantics.
 
#37
#37
I think you do misunderstand. If you read the scenario I described again, you will not find the NCAA dictating to or interfering with Spyre. Doesn't even address Spyre or other collectives. The NCAA is merely coordinating an agreement among the universities not to exceed $100M (arbitrarily chosen amount just for this example) in their rosters.

Spyre is free to sign as many contracts as they choose, of any value, with as many clients/employees as they wish. But if they engage in more than $100M worth of NIL contracts, some of their employees are going to have to go to a different university than others. Because no single school will let them all in.

As an EFFECT of that, Spyre (who only want to support Tennessee) will voluntarily choose to stop spending at the $100M limit, so that it can send all its talent to the school it favors.

And that is very different from the NCAA (or conferences, or schools) dictating or interfering.


The universities aren't capping any player or collective's NIL contracts. They're capping instead their own rosters. Which they are entirely free to do.

As for whether this approach violates Antitrust law, idk. I'm no lawyer. But it doesn't seem to, from a layman's perspective. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Go Vols!
Spyre can send all of their talent to UT as they wish. They have more chance of losing talent to other schools with limiting payouts than they do by spending more. That's just basic economics.
 
#38
#38
The universities can't cap either individual or collective NIL because they don't pay it. It's not salary, ergo a salary cap cannot apply to it.

It's not elegant, it doesn't solve anything, and it violates the Simpson Antitrust Act.
And again, if the universities agree to cap NIL, that's illegal collusion. It lays those that do it open to criminal charges as well as lawsuits that will make the House settlement look like chicken feed.
 
#39
#39
And again, if the universities agree to cap NIL, that's illegal collusion. It lays those that do it open to criminal charges as well as lawsuits that will make the House settlement look like chicken feed.
I don't think you're right on this, but it's not worth pole vaulting over, for now. We'll just have to wait and see what courts end up saying.

p.s. They're not capping NIL, per se. They're capping their rosters. NIL deals can continue to infinity around them, outside their rosters.
 
#40
#40
I don't think you're right on this, but it's not worth pole vaulting over, for now. We'll just have to wait and see what courts end up saying.

p.s. They're not capping NIL, per se. They're capping their rosters. NIL deals can continue to infinity around them, outside their rosters.
Again, capping the roster caps individuals. It's illegal for any outside entity to do that.
 
#41
#41
Again, capping the roster caps individuals. It's illegal for any outside entity to do that.
No it doesn't. Any individual could have a $20M NIL deal. A $40M NIL deal. Heck, a $60M NIL deal. And could still be on the team, if the team really wants him.

Heck, that player could even get a $120M NIL deal, if some collective is willing to pay it. He would just have to find a school that would accept him, perhaps one not in the FBS agreement (FCS? Div II? rich JUCO? Whatever, anyone with a sugar daddy with really deep pockets and a willingness to spend it on college football).

Point is, individuals aren't capped. The schools are only capping themselves in this scenario.
 
#42
#42
Spyre can send all of their talent to UT as they wish. They have more chance of losing talent to other schools with limiting payouts than they do by spending more. That's just basic economics.

Sprye only send the talent to UT that coaches give them a thumbs up on. Its exactly why Thompson (Northwestern transfer OL) ended up at LSU rather than Tennessee. UT thumbs downed on the amount.
 
#43
#43
No it doesn't. Any individual could have a $20M NIL deal. A $40M NIL deal. Heck, a $60M NIL deal. And could still be on the team, if the team really wants him.

Heck, that player could even get a $120M NIL deal, if some collective is willing to pay it. He would just have to find a school that would accept him, perhaps one not in the FBS agreement (FCS? Div II? rich JUCO? Whatever, anyone with a sugar daddy with really deep pockets and a willingness to spend it on college football).

Point is, individuals aren't capped. The schools are only capping themselves in this scenario.
This just shoves money over the "cap" back underground. Remember, all this money was a violation previously and EVERY successful school cheated and paid athletes.

It just turns the clock back to 2018 or so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.C. OrangeMan
#45
#45
No it doesn't. Any individual could have a $20M NIL deal. A $40M NIL deal. Heck, a $60M NIL deal. And could still be on the team, if the team really wants him.

Heck, that player could even get a $120M NIL deal, if some collective is willing to pay it. He would just have to find a school that would accept him, perhaps one not in the FBS agreement (FCS? Div II? rich JUCO? Whatever, anyone with a sugar daddy with really deep pockets and a willingness to spend it on college football).

Point is, individuals aren't capped. The schools are only capping themselves in this scenario.
Dude, you are arguing that market collusion is legal. It absolutely is not.
 
#46
#46
Not really. Think about it.

Say the FBS universities all agree to an NIL cap per school: each institution can have players on roster up to (just making up a number here) $100M in total reportable NIL. Meanwhile, an NIL cooperative at one of those institutions, say Spyre in Knoxville, is free to enter into any contract agreement with any player it desires. There is no external restriction on the free exchange between Sypre and players. Spyre is not bound by the $100M limit; it just can't have all its players enrolled at the same school, if it spends more.

But Spyre no longer WANTS to pay more than $100M to players, because it (a) wants only to help Tennessee, and (b) is no longer in open-ended competition for talent with the other co-ops supporting other schools. So what is, in effect, a collective salary cap holds without the NCAA, conferences, or universities interfering in private NIL deals.

And this doesn't require any action by the US Congress, afaik.

It's actually a fairly elegant "solution"

Of course, we'll be right back to the days of cheating by paying under the table, and the best cheaters (say "Bama," everyone) will once again have advantage.

But it ostensibly solves the runaway NIL problem.

Go Vols!
Actually, it's so sketchy that at least one of Deloitte's attorneys wrote an internal memo stating grave concerns about the legality of the NIL clause in the House settlement.

The concern was apparently that the NCAA is trying to get Deloitte positioned as a patsy if the settlement is overturned by a higher court or by counter lawsuits.

The memo was leaked, then taken down.
If I was Deloitte, I wouldn't get anywhere near being a clearinghouse for the NCAA's 3rd rail.
 
#47
#47
So then you are ok with your earning potential being arbitrarily capped?

Maybe thinking about it another way, there are students on scholarship in the UT Department of Theater. Should the government cap how much they can earn doing summer rep tours or acting in commercials locally?

Likely a good chunk of the kids in Comp Sci have side gigs. What about them? What about scholarship students driving Uber or Lyft on weekends?

There are current UT students that make a decent amount of money as content creators on YouTube or TikTok, or Instagram. They are making money off their own name/image/likeness. Should the NCAA cap those earnings as well?

You may not like it, but we have held student athletes to a different standard than other scholarship students for too long. It is not only unethical, it is un-American. The markets should be the only limit to an individuals opportunities to improve their lot.
I agree with you general point. However, when comparing athletes to other scholarship students, keep in mind a very large number of students in other fields are required to complete an unpaid internship as part of their degree program. In those situations, the company, whether it be a school system, private business, government entity, etc. profits off the work they do while the student gets nothing.
 
#48
#48
You cannot limit an individual from accepting NIL, but institutions can agree upon entry into competitive organizations to limits on amount of legally reported NIL $ just like they do scholarships, official visits, and on field staff members.

Once it is firmly established, that will be the next step. Until an individual has no institution with available cap space, there can be no harm, just like getting shut out at schools of choice by the 85 limit. Unlikely a kid worth NIL to not be offered an opportunity to play SOMEWHERE.

Possible they would allow them to enroll and not participate on an NIL redshirt. NIL can’t link money to performance, SOOOOO……NIL folks at risk.
Again, that is illegal.

 
#49
#49
No it doesn't. Any individual could have a $20M NIL deal. A $40M NIL deal. Heck, a $60M NIL deal. And could still be on the team, if the team really wants him.

Heck, that player could even get a $120M NIL deal, if some collective is willing to pay it. He would just have to find a school that would accept him, perhaps one not in the FBS agreement (FCS? Div II? rich JUCO? Whatever, anyone with a sugar daddy with really deep pockets and a willingness to spend it on college football).

Point is, individuals aren't capped. The schools are only capping themselves in this scenario.

They can cap direct payments but can in no way limit the total NIL deals of the combined roster - that is very clearly market manipulation/collusion.

Think of it this way - who benefits from the NIL cap? It is absolutely not the players. It is the NCAA, the universities, and even the "consumers" of talent who would likely love the idea of limiting what they have to pay for that talent.

0 chance that will be allowed. There is 0 chance that the NCAA will eve have a say in NIL at all, ever.
 
#50
#50
I agree with you general point. However, when comparing athletes to other scholarship students, keep in mind a very large number of students in other fields are required to complete an unpaid internship as part of their degree program. In those situations, the company, whether it be a school system, private business, government entity, etc. profits off the work they do while the student gets nothing.

This used to be true, but unpaid internships are governed much differently now.

From Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act

Courts have used the “primary beneficiary test” to determine whether an intern or student is, in fact, an employee under the FLSA.2 In short, this test allows courts to examine the “economic reality” of the intern-employer relationship to determine which party is the “primary beneficiary” of the relationship.
 

VN Store



Back
Top