Hey bthaurnert, NIL question

[Cat_Man_Blue]

I keep seeing people posting that teams have to scramble to get NIL deals done before the 7th, because the house settlement will put a cap on NIL deals. Based on the article posted here the other day, I don't think that is the case. The House settlement will put a cap on revenue sharing that each university receives from media, programming and ticket sales. It will have no bearing on NIL collectives and other 3rd party NIL organizations, therefore 3rd party entities can pay whatever they want to an athlete.

The way I see it, student atheletes will be able to get income from two different streams, NIL & university revenue sharing.

Have you looked into this and what are your thoughts?

 

[Butters' Dad]

The Supreme Court ruling that established NIL also said that you cannot limit a player's ability to earn money on NIL in any way shape or form. Any attempt to cap NIL will run into a lawsuit which the body that tries to do so will absolutely lose unless the Supreme Court decision is thrown out. That's why I'm real suspect about this Clearing House concept. Sounds like they will be toothless,

 

[billoliver40]

Supposedly ant NIL over 600 dollars has to be reported. I don't know if that means NIL or IRS.

 

[BlueSince92]

It's not rocket science. Many more top-talent players have signed with schools through the portal so far as compared with how many had declared and signed last year at this time, and right now there are fewer top-talent guys left in the portal than a year ago at this time.

It doesn't ultimately matter too much what may actually come out of April 7th. The perception among schools and players all looking out for themselves and avoiding worst-case scenarios is that some significant change *may* happen on April 7th. That has changed the stakes and timelines. It won't help us if our school winds up being able to pay players from two different streams if there are no top-talent players left unsigned and we are left holding the bag because we waited around coolly while everyone else was panicking.

The legal ramifications of the April 7th ruling remain to be seen.

The practical results of the fact that April 7th is looming are a different matter entirely. They are having a dramatic effect all around our ears.

 

[Docpath1972]

I think that it is true that NIL cannot be capped but as has been stated all deals over $600 have to be reported and have to be actually NIL meaning contracts with actual business entities with the athlete and would eliminate the collective model. Don’t know if it will be successful or not.

 

[Cat_Man_Blue]

It's not rocket science. Many more top-talent players have signed with schools through the portal so far as compared with how many had declared and signed last year at this time, and right now there are fewer top-talent guys left in the portal than a year ago at this time.

It doesn't ultimately matter too much what may actually come out of April 7th. The perception among schools and players all looking out for themselves and avoiding worst-case scenarios is that some significant change *may* happen on April 7th. That has changed the stakes and timelines. It won't help us if our school winds up being able to pay players from two different streams if there are no top-talent players left unsigned and we are left holding the bag because we waited around coolly while everyone else was panicking.

The legal ramifications of the April 7th ruling remain to be seen.

The practical results of the fact that April 7th is looming are a different matter entirely. They are having a dramatic effect all around our ears.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. My main point is that there really is not a NIL cap after the 7th. The cap is mentioned in every portal thread.

 

[Cat_Man_Blue]

@bthaurnert

 

[bthaunert]

@bthaurnert

Sorry...just seeing this as you added an "r" to my username so never saw it. I believe the mad scramble before the house ruling (which has been pushed back) is bc the system that will be put into place to have all NIL deals over $600 vetted by Deloitte, will supposedly ensure fair market value of a deal and you can't just do pay for play, which is essentially what is happening right now. There will be more constraints and more legitimate NIL deals will be what will take place.

Now as we know, schools/alumni will figure out ways to beat the system, but I don't think you'll see any future years quite like this year.

 

[Cat_Man_Blue]

Sorry...just seeing this as you added an "r" to my username so never saw it. I believe the mad scramble before the house ruling (which has been pushed back) is bc the system that will be put into place to have all NIL deals over $600 vetted by Deloitte, will supposedly ensure fair market value of a deal and you can't just do pay for play, which is essentially what is happening right now. There will be more constraints and more legitimate NIL deals will be what will take place.

Now as we know, schools/alumni will figure out ways to beat the system, but I don't think you'll see any future years quite like this year.

Thanks
Based on the Deloitte scrutiny, I would think that a NIL deal like BYU gave Dybansta would be blocked. It will be interesting to see what and how fair market value is determined.