I really don't understand this. How can JMI control the uniform usage? You would think Nike would be the one bitching about using g the uniforms for NIL
Matt Jones regarding the NIL at UK.
- Thread starter Creed Bratton
- Start date
If the university and it's employees and students have a contract that says JMI directs media appearances and the like, then as employees and students of the school, they can't just go wherever they feel like it to get paid.
That's the hang up.
NIL didn't exist when the deal was signed, and it doesn't sound like they're willing to give it up for nothing... But if Mitch has any common sense, he'd pay whatever it takes to get out of it. It'll be worth it in the long run.
But that isn't at all the situation. People can freely hire the kids with no issue. They just can't use the name or trademark images of the school.
No. You did not read the opinion. The 9-0 decision did not involve NIL. The decision was limited to educational benefits. You don’t know what you are talking about. And, 9-0 happens. You probably only follow the political decisions. Most decisions are not political. 9-0 decisions are not rare.
Please stop posting about this.
I dont understand how the UK logo is off limits. Its a state university and we all pay taxes. I can get that maybe they have a copyrighted version but I don't see how it's 'illegal' for me to put "UK Football" on a jersey and sell it.
I’m fairly high up in a fortune 50 company. They’re happy to help the city out, but there is no way they are going to contribute to NIL. They could care less if a recruit comes to the university.
Btw: according to Matt Jones, over 10,000 votes and over 90% want alcohol at UK games. Yet, Mitch thinks UK fans don’t want it…..how out of touch is he? He really needs to be fired if he’s that out of touch with the fan base!
No need. Show them how its in their best interest to write a new contract.
Sports marketing company. They hold the rights to UK through 2030.
Parties to a contract are always free to negotiate a new deal prior to the expiration of the current deal. You assume, however, that JMI will agree with you. Not sure that assumption is valid.
BTW, the idea that JMI’s control over the logo and image of UK sports is what is killing NIL at UK is a flawed rabbit hole, as expressed here. Dr Pepper used a Heisman QB in a national commercial. They did not need a Bama jersey or logo to make that deal work. And, TAMU recruits being paid to play (not NIL) does not rely upon the use of a logo or jersey. By and large, this is an anecdotal red herring.
All I heard when it was against the rules to pay players was how UK horse, coal and Bourbon ppl spent money on athletes
That thinking is from a time long ago when the gov derived its power from the people rather than now when they ignore the needs of the people because of their power.
Horses, coal have seen much better days than now; bourbon distilleries are not locally owned.
Despite that, there are plenty of moneyed people other than Joe & Kelly Craft who want UK football to be more successful. Just take the chains off, make the goals clearer and more understandable, give people confidence their money isn't going in JMIs black hole pockets.
Despite that, there are plenty of moneyed people other than Joe & Kelly Craft who want UK football to be more successful. Just take the chains off, make the goals clearer and more understandable, give people confidence their money isn't going in JMIs black hole pockets.
Twitter, not a perfect poll. But, with results that skewed it’s an obvious answer.
Settle in
“In 2015 the University of Kentucky entered a 15-year, $210 million agreement with JMI Sports, an innovator in sales, marketing, and project management services to universities and professional teams.”
JMI Partnership | EVPFA
evpfa.uky.edu
Wow. Inflation and the market have not been kind to those figures. FIF.TEEN.YEARS?! Who does that? Yikes
Followers of Jones or KSR?
Wouldn’t a better poll include the people who buy season tix? How many of those “10,000” have season tix?
I don’t care if it’s On3 or JMI just as long as there is a working relationship that helps players, school and media rights owner.
I remember when they dropped the block K and went after Kroger for selling sweatshirts with the K on them afterward. Relentlessly litigious. There's very little good will between them and the people that manufacture merchandise. It's more like the emperor and the planet Alderaan.
I remember how much sht they gave the basketball museum thing. Let it drown so they could swoop in like the vultures they are and pick the bones clean afterward.
They also ran and nearly ran some really inventive clothing makers out of business. I had forgotten most of this until I got into this thread more. Wouldn't "let" a friend of mine auction off game photographs for charity. He did it anyway. Instead of fostering creativity they have murdered it wherever possible.
I remember when they outsourced out a logo creation job instead of putting the money towards their own arts program back in the late 90s. Hundreds of thousands of dollars sent to another state even, when they have an art program at UK. Completely asinine.
And nil with alcohol, tobacco, or gambling companies are not allowed at UK.
All they got from spending that massive money was one line on the K that was barely changed. Lmao what a bargain
🙄 JMI has another 8 years on their contract. I’d say his motivations revolve around the fact that he has business interests that are dependent upon the success of UK athletics….and he’s pretty honest about admitting it.
I got news for the people that want alcohol sales to the non-rich fans at the stadium.
We're not fooled.
1. People won't stop bringing in their alcohol.
2. They just want to be able to drink without fear of being caught.
3. Most will not pay for 8$ beers.
4. People WILL be more drunk and belligerent (like UL and UT fans at games)
5. Less than 10% of people will be affected positively by selling alcohol at games.
6. No one has shown how much profit UKAA will generate by "selling their soul"to JMI to alcohol sales in the stadium.
They don't seem to be generating NEARLY as much revenue from concessions as they used to, and they still haven't returned to vending in the stands like they did. That drives a lot of sales. If it's a losing money deal for the luxury suites, I can see why they don't want to lose money in the stands. The ROI isn't worth it, and it takes money out of the pocket of local liquor stores and bars/restaurants.
People around us were drunk at the last game we attended as a family. They weren't throwing up, but there were stupid and belligerent drunks trying to act like they understood football. The swearing that accelerates with inebriation is part of the drawback for families to attend if the alcohol situation gets much worse.
I don't care what they do. If they sell alcohol at the football games, I'll probably go less, but if it makes athletics more money to compete with the rest of the SEC, I expect I just won't be attending the games.
However, IF it WILL make them a sizable profit for the program they should do it. IF THEY DO IT, they should ALSO raise ticket prices. If people have that extra money to spend on 8-10$ beers, they can afford higher ticket prices, too. Raise em 10-15$ per game and give ticket holders 1 free drink and a bag of peanuts from concessions.
Help em drink responsibly, foster good will, and give them some protein to mediate some of that alcohol. (And salt to make em more thirsty, like bars always used to do back 30-40 years ago). Lol
We're not fooled.
1. People won't stop bringing in their alcohol.
2. They just want to be able to drink without fear of being caught.
3. Most will not pay for 8$ beers.
4. People WILL be more drunk and belligerent (like UL and UT fans at games)
5. Less than 10% of people will be affected positively by selling alcohol at games.
6. No one has shown how much profit UKAA will generate by "selling their soul"
They don't seem to be generating NEARLY as much revenue from concessions as they used to, and they still haven't returned to vending in the stands like they did. That drives a lot of sales. If it's a losing money deal for the luxury suites, I can see why they don't want to lose money in the stands. The ROI isn't worth it, and it takes money out of the pocket of local liquor stores and bars/restaurants.
People around us were drunk at the last game we attended as a family. They weren't throwing up, but there were stupid and belligerent drunks trying to act like they understood football. The swearing that accelerates with inebriation is part of the drawback for families to attend if the alcohol situation gets much worse.
I don't care what they do. If they sell alcohol at the football games, I'll probably go less, but if it makes athletics more money to compete with the rest of the SEC, I expect I just won't be attending the games.
However, IF it WILL make them a sizable profit for the program they should do it. IF THEY DO IT, they should ALSO raise ticket prices. If people have that extra money to spend on 8-10$ beers, they can afford higher ticket prices, too. Raise em 10-15$ per game and give ticket holders 1 free drink and a bag of peanuts from concessions.
Help em drink responsibly, foster good will, and give them some protein to mediate some of that alcohol. (And salt to make em more thirsty, like bars always used to do back 30-40 years ago). Lol
Last edited:
The right to all paid personal appearances (ie coaches shows, but also these meet and greets etc) are owned by JMI
Let me edit my comments, because you are correct. For the right price anything is possible. Some combination of JMI and MItch is making it price prohibitive and not a welcoming and cooperative process. Bama has an NIL store with player jerseys where proceeds go to the players, but Bama negotiated the licensing deal with Fanatics(their JMI) and included it in their broader licensing arrangement, so the players would benefit the full revenue from the store. Fanatics understands the concept of smaller slice, bigger pie is a win/win. I'm obviously not privy to the contract detail, nor Mitch's specific role here, so this is conjecture, but it seems JMI is either taking a hard line on the contract or Mitch is using the contractual wording as cover for his personal disgust at this evolvement of the market. Some are progressive and are taking advantage of change and ours are conservative and resistant to the new paradigm, trying desperately to dig their moat, even to the detriment of the revenue sports.
Do they own it because part the vast majority of coaches compensation is paid by third parties?
As I've said before. The world has changed. A new contract is needed. If they don't want to cooperate, fine but they won't be part of future bids.
That sounds fine but if it isn't them, it will be someone else. The school won't just let its IP be used for free. Whether it's jmi, UK, or some other acronym; no one is using school name or trademark for free.
If Jones had anything besides self interest, he'd explain this so to avoid setting unrealistic expectations for potential nil partners
Typical of the Barnhart hypocrisy.
Makers Mark can pay him, to have a huge named section of the football stadium, that's OK! But a football player, who everyone is in the stadium to watch play, can't take bourbon money to promote the largest tourism activity in the Commonwealth.
Thought I read where it took OH ST 8M to keep their players for next season? Does this sound right or did I misread? Anyway, if that is right, how can we raise that kind of money every year just to keep guys?
So when UK signed the contract with JMI it gave them the rights to essentially the UK copyright and logo's. Every school has a deal like this, and it's essentially for the university to capitalize off of their own property. It's pretty much UK getting paid to have a marketing team.
Then it sounds like JMI providing NIL monies for Uk athletes would be good for JMI business.
That's my point. Name all the big money UK supporters you want & the likes of OSU have 2-3X that if not more.
You're right, we need to squeeze every nickel we can for NIL or we are going to be in dire straights. I posted this thread that didn't get any traction about what I think is Mitch's biggest blunder.
https://kentucky.forums.rivals.com/threads/nil-shoe-contract-how-bad-we-are-behind-and-whos-ahead-of-us.379691/
Instead of just reupping casually with Nike, Mitch should have been beating the bushes looking for the best apparel deal he could get. It's put us behind the 8 ball because Adidas is shelling out big NIL bucks to try and keep UL relevant. If Mitch had been more diligent then we could be getting that money. There is absolutely no reason that UL should be getting 3 times what we are in apparel money.
I don't represent any coaches and am not privy to individual contractual structuring, but I suspect most coaches' marketing rights are owned by third parties who pay the majority of the very large salaries. Given what you can glean from media reports, it would seem JMI is not willing to play ball, while the partners of many other major football programs understand the word partner and are working things out to keep the schools and, more importantly, the players happy.
If a player cannot make an appearance without a uniform, or cannot sell an autograph or t-shirt without a logo, it doesn't sound like their NIL is worth much anyway.
I believe the law that passed the legislature or the executive order signed by Beshear (I can't remember which way it was passed) has certain restrictions on who is able to do NIL deals such as liquor companies, casinos, adult oriented businesses, etc. I could be wrong about that though.
Similar threads
