Ohio's coach Ryan Day was quoted this summer that he needed his fans/boosters to provide NIL of $8M a year, if they want to maintain as a top 5 talented program
JMI owns the rights to the trademark and all media rights. Nike would love for the uniforms to be used. Every uniform has a swoosh which is advertising for Nike.
While I don’t disagree with that idea, JMI represents other schools besides UK and that may be a rabbit hole they don’t want to enter. They are investing $210M over the life of the contract and who knows what return they are getting on that investment? If they give away access to trademarks or sell access at a reduced rate that undermines their ability to sell it to sponsors at the rate they want. It’s their business and their money at stake.
Free isn't the issue. Requiring huge payments for small projects is the issue. Find a way to allow it on a per unit basis. Lots of small doors would open. As for UK, what is their issue? They need the players. Allowing logo use may become required in small markets. It isn't like it actually costs UK anything. Take the bit out of entrepreneurs mouths and let's see what happens.
The guy who owns the trading card shop (I think it's the one on Romany Rd) called in to KSR and said he had tried to sign Will Levis and some other players to an NIL deal that would include signed pictures wearing their UK uniform. JMI told him it was $250k. He said that would be more than I could make after paying the players and JMI would not lower it to a reasonable rate to help he and the players find an equitable deal. He laid the blame on JMI, as he said Mitch was not involved in the negotiations.
I'm not surprised by that story. UK doesn't own the rights and therefore would not be involved the discussions for what those rights would be sold for. I have no way of knowing, but I suspect JMI is not set up to deal with a bunch of mom and pop shops who want to use the UK logo. They probably feel that the rate they would have to charge to make it economically feasible for mom and pop businesses to buy the rights to use the UK logo is not worth the additional staffing they would have to hire to administer all of those accounts. That's just a guess on my part.
Not sure what you’re saying but the NFL and the NFLPA have collectively bargained if and how players can use NFL properties.
To quote Mark Cuban, would you rather have 100% of a grape or 5% of a watermelon?
WTF does Beshear or whoever have to do with 2 people engaging in legal activity? Jesus this world keeps getting stranger.
Yeah. 7-6 is okay with me!!!
I live 10 min from bowling and Franklin.
They followed the other laws enacted in other states. Casinos make sense though. If they have a sports book and an athlete signed to an NIL deal, there is a greater risk for at least the look of impropriety. UK already has former players banned for alleged point shaving.
I thought someone said that BG had passed Lexington as states second largest city?
So you are saying it has nothing to do with JMI or UK, but rather the law in Kentucky.
The law prohibits NIL deals for only specific industries such as casinos, liquor, and adult oriented businesses. There might be a few others. All other obstacles are squarely on the shoulders of Mitch and JMI.
They needed the law because other states were implementing laws allowing NIL. Without it, all universities in KY were gonna be left behind. That law is the only reason NIL exists today for UK, UL, etc. It was always expected to be temporary until a federal law governing all universities nationwide was passed.
I can see not allowing 18 year olds to market alcohol but not once you're 21. These are arbitrary limitations and I think a kid, not far down the line, will sue and will win. Can a non-athlete student market a product? If so, the very nature of Kavanaughs comments are being violated.
I think that is too linear. UK has a contract with those other entities. THAT contract is not reworked every time UK hires a new coach or renegotiates a contract.
There is no doubt that pay raises come from third-party contracts and arrangements, but that does not mean those deals are reworked each pay raise. For example, JMI’s deal extends beyond Stoops’. I doubt JMI renegotiates its deal with UK each time Mitch and Stoops agree on a raise. If not, the foundations of that aspect of Stoops’ deal does not change. Granted, I am speculating, like others here, because we don’t know.
I don't think that would change anything. The State clearly couldn't say they can't make money from NIL so I'm not sure splitting the baby in this way will stand either. Why would an athlete be treated differently?
I am not saying there is no possible foundation for a claim. I just don’t think Kavanaugh’s concurrence would have any role. The state acting is not the NCAA. The state can, as said, limit the age of those who may advertise alcohol and can say athletes competing in games where bets occur cannot advertise for the betting services. I don’t think those two things would be found unlawful.
His concurrence doesn't hold any real weight on it's own. It's more of a line in the sand warning.
Somebody tell me this NIL isn't going to be the end of CFB and college athletics in general?
No doubt and maybe not even that, as no justice joined him. Still, legally it does not apply to the Kentucky state law.
Its not, anyone who says it is just being dramatic
Well, the playing field is pretty uneven. It's interesting that the NCAA allows for beer ads, for huge amounts of money and allows schools to sell beer and wine at events, but yet kids are limited in an arbitrary way on being able to endorse these products. It makes no sense. Sure, for alcohol be 21, for gambling or some other adult themed product, be 18 but other than that, I don't see how this can stand.
I look at it as serving/selling alcohol. The laws state (I think its this way) that you can't sell alcohol until you are 18. You can't serve it until you are 21. I think that is the way it is. I remember in college when I was a waiter that some of our staff couldn't serve alcohol to their tables because they were under the age of 21 but that has been over 20 years ago.
