NCAA Regs and Even State Laws Limiting “Pay-for-Play” Might be Short-lived in Lawsuits.

[The-Hack]

If I am Paul Miller Ford, or Knoxville Mercedes Benz, and I do an NIL deal with Levis or Hendon Hooker, how can I be prevented from requiring they play for the local University?

NIL, at it’s best, is a legitimate sale of the name, image and likeness of someone who can benefit the business and it’s sales. Undoubtedly, the QB whose NIL persistently shows up associated with the most popular State U in the vicinity of the business purchasing the rights is of greater value than a dude that flunks out of school, gets caught with drugs, or simply transfers to Utah State, on short notice.

I have suggested in other threads, purchasers of high dollar NIL rights, at a minimum, should spread payments out over a lengthy (three year) time period, and give themselves frequent options to not renew the contract/payments in the purchaser’s sole discretion. This would legally sidestep any ticklish issues of where a player played, how well they played, etc., and allow the purchaser an easy out for a kid who flunks out or transfers.

But how could either the state governments or NCAA constitutionally limit contracting parties’ obvious and inherent interest in what actually makes the contract worthwhile to the purchaser: endorsement by a player playing for the popular, prominent school?

The fact that Will Levis is known and admired in the market area of Paul Miller Ford is the only business reason Paul Miller Ford would be willing to pay for his NIL.

I understand that “pay-for-play” is frowned upon, but how do you separate that theory from the obvious theory that Paul Miller Ford will not increase sales advertising with a player who transfers to Tennessee after the paperwork is done?

I suspect that Courts will continue to lean very heavily toward enforcement of contract language that protects the purchaser’s obvious right to have a marketable product for their investment.

Ultimately, I think our enshrined freedom of contractual rights will defeat attempts to make illegal deals that can be cynically interpreted as straight pay-for-play.

 

[BBBLazing]

I'm sure that NIL contracts have clauses that require the player to be a UK player to earn the money. Any company that gives a kid money in advance of their completing their duty to use the players name in advertising doesn't have a good lawyer. I've been involved in endorsement deals in the past, and they all have out clauses if the player is no longer a good ambassador for the brand that is paying them. Think Tiger Woods after he got caught with all of the women. He was dropped by many companies that were paying him millions to endorse their products.

At the beginning, I realize that boosters are just paying kids, with no endorsement value, to come to the schools they support. These people didn't get rich losing money. It won't take long for them to realize that endorsing a kid that ends up 4 deep on the depth chart is a bad investment. I truly think it will work its way out.

 

[The-Hack]

I truly think it will work its way out.

As for football, I think our coaches and “investors” have threaded the needle better than we could have hoped for in July.

I expect Leary is getting a nice package, and whatever it is, it looks much more likely to pay the advertisers than some of these massive collective NIL deals for true freshmen.

 

[NewWorldKat]

Real NIL requires appearances or autograph signings or a number of clauses that can’t be met if a UK player is now living in say Gainesville FL. So if they sign a contract saying they’ll do this many appearances and a commercial at Paul Miller Ford but can’t because they’re 10 hours away, they’ll be in breach. Every player with a social media following has a value. Nico is a Polynesian kid with a laid back Cali attitude that would play well almost anywhere but is playing especially well for a fanbase that exalts good QBs like kings i.e. Hooker, Dobbs, Manning, Shuler and so on. He has an extensive value. Less known kids do too but not on the same level obviously. Livvy Dunne is probably the 8th most talented gymnast on LSUs roster but she makes the most endorsement money. Because she has personality, good looks, a bubbly personality.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

If I am Paul Miller Ford, or Knoxville Mercedes Benz, and I do an NIL deal with Levis or Hendon Hooker, how can I be prevented from requiring they play for the local University?

NIL, at it’s best, is a legitimate sale of the name, image and likeness of someone who can benefit the business and it’s sales. Undoubtedly, the QB whose NIL persistently shows up associated with the most popular State U in the vicinity of the business purchasing the rights is of greater value than a dude that flunks out of school, gets caught with drugs, or simply transfers to Utah State, on short notice.

I have suggested in other threads, purchasers of high dollar NIL rights, at a minimum, should spread payments out over a lengthy (three year) time period, and give themselves frequent options to not renew the contract/payments in the purchaser’s sole discretion. This would legally sidestep any ticklish issues of where a player played, how well they played, etc., and allow the purchaser an easy out for a kid who flunks out or transfers.

But how could either the state governments or NCAA constitutionally limit contracting parties’ obvious and inherent interest in what actually makes the contract worthwhile to the purchaser: endorsement by a player playing for the popular, prominent school?

The fact that Will Levis is known and admired in the market area of Paul Miller Ford is the only business reason Paul Miller Ford would be willing to pay for his NIL.

I understand that “pay-for-play” is frowned upon, but how do you separate that theory from the obvious theory that Paul Miller Ford will not increase sales advertising with a player who transfers to Tennessee after the paperwork is done?

I suspect that Courts will continue to lean very heavily toward enforcement of contract language that protects the purchaser’s obvious right to have a marketable product for their investment.

Ultimately, I think our enshrined freedom of contractual rights will defeat attempts to make illegal deals that can be cynically interpreted as straight pay-for-play.

Yes and taking it 1 step further, I think before long a challenge will be made against University approval of deals. If the kids aren't wearing official gear in the ads, what basis exists to tell a kid yes or no on a deal? The snow has just started to fall but a blizzard is coming.

 

[The-Hack]

Yes and taking it 1 step further, I think before long a challenge will be made against University approval of deals. If the kids aren't wearing official gear in the ads, what basis exists to tell a kid yes or no on a deal? The snow has just started to fall but a blizzard is coming.

Yes.

If the rights belong to an adult, what right does the school have to govern it? Now, if there was a UK emblem involved . . . .

 

[Girthang]

If I am Paul Miller Ford, or Knoxville Mercedes Benz, and I do an NIL deal with Levis or Hendon Hooker, how can I be prevented from requiring they play for the local University?

NIL, at it’s best, is a legitimate sale of the name, image and likeness of someone who can benefit the business and it’s sales. Undoubtedly, the QB whose NIL persistently shows up associated with the most popular State U in the vicinity of the business purchasing the rights is of greater value than a dude that flunks out of school, gets caught with drugs, or simply transfers to Utah State, on short notice.

I have suggested in other threads, purchasers of high dollar NIL rights, at a minimum, should spread payments out over a lengthy (three year) time period, and give themselves frequent options to not renew the contract/payments in the purchaser’s sole discretion. This would legally sidestep any ticklish issues of where a player played, how well they played, etc., and allow the purchaser an easy out for a kid who flunks out or transfers.

But how could either the state governments or NCAA constitutionally limit contracting parties’ obvious and inherent interest in what actually makes the contract worthwhile to the purchaser: endorsement by a player playing for the popular, prominent school?

The fact that Will Levis is known and admired in the market area of Paul Miller Ford is the only business reason Paul Miller Ford would be willing to pay for his NIL.

I understand that “pay-for-play” is frowned upon, but how do you separate that theory from the obvious theory that Paul Miller Ford will not increase sales advertising with a player who transfers to Tennessee after the paperwork is done?

I suspect that Courts will continue to lean very heavily toward enforcement of contract language that protects the purchaser’s obvious right to have a marketable product for their investment.

Ultimately, I think our enshrined freedom of contractual rights will defeat attempts to make illegal deals that can be cynically interpreted as straight pay-for-play.

Agreed.

It was inevitable that pay-for-play was the end result of NIL. Just a matter of time. However, the ncaa as an association can still restrict its members to an agreed upon code of ethics, and players COULD still be declared ineligible after the fact, and wins vacated.

We have seen already that the ncaa doesn't care about eligibility as much as they profess, given the rulings on UNC, UL, UT, UCLA, KU, etc. Sanctions are ONLY a political tool used conveniently and capriciously against schools that provide less income to the association, those the association leaders like or dislike, and/or those who little affect the positive image of the association.

It doesn't change that it's against ncaa rules right now. Rules that will have to be forced to be amended by the member schools.

What this will do long term, is allow schools that had been relegated to G5 status but have very successful, rich, and willing alumni or local corporations to boost their stock above schools in the P5 conferences. That is, if they survive P5 consolidation, them not initially having great media contracts, and less beneficial scheduling of P5 teams. Should be interesting

 

[Magilla Gorillla]

Yes and taking it 1 step further, I think before long a challenge will be made against University approval of deals. If the kids aren't wearing official gear in the ads, what basis exists to tell a kid yes or no on a deal? The snow has just started to fall but a blizzard is coming.

Well according to you guys, every other school allows use of of official uniforms and logos for free. Only at UK does JMI charge and they charged poor Brady James for use of UK’s name image and likeness.

Are you telling me all that outrage was BS and that’s a common business practice? Say it so.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Yes and taking it 1 step further, I think before long a challenge will be made against University approval of deals. If the kids aren't wearing official gear in the ads, what basis exists to tell a kid yes or no on a deal? The snow has just started to fall but a blizzard is coming.

Agree and said as much on here when the dumb eo was signed. The players already had all the rights they needed. The eo just took their leverage away by limiting what they could sign. Then the law signed did the same stupid thing.

Also agree that UK's best nil opportunities are regional/local. There isn't a ton of money here, but combined with NFL coaching it's enough to spend and get who we want (within reason) in key positions while filling the rest with very good players

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Well according to you guys, every other school allows use of of official uniforms and logos for free. Only at UK does JMI charge and they charged poor Brady James for use of UK’s name image and likeness.

Are you telling me all that outrage was BS and that’s a common business practice? Say it so.

I never said any such thing. I said UK should let players do so to increase NIL opportunities.

Perhaps you can try to stay on topic. As of now, the players don't use school logos so what right exists for schools to limit deals in any way?

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Agree and said as much on here when the dumb eo was signed. The players already had all the rights they needed. The eo just took their leverage away by limiting what they could sign. Then the law signed did the same stupid thing.

Also agree that UK's best nil opportunities are regional/local. There isn't a ton of money here, but combined with NFL coaching it's enough to spend and get who we want (within reason) in key positions while filling the rest with very good players

If the courts view NIL as a basic right of personal ownership and use, the state won't win by trying to usurp that right with legislation.

 

[Magilla Gorillla]

I never said any such thing. I said UK should let players do so to increase NIL opportunities.

Perhaps you can try to stay on topic. As of now, the players don't use school logos so what right exists for schools to limit deals in any way?

Ultimately they can’t, but if you want to be a part of their organization you have to follow their rules and regulations.

I was just real confused because there was of week of outrage on the board because JMI charges for use of the UK logo uniform and likeness and I was told this hood UK back. From what you are saying, this is a common business practice for all of these schools. That’s why I’m confused about the outrage.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Ultimately they can’t, but if you want to be a part of their organization you have to follow their rules and regulations.

Well, that isn't true or we wouldn't have NIL to begin with. Just because the rule exists doesn't mean it isn't going to be struck down upon challenge.

 

[Girthang]

I never said any such thing. I said UK should let players do so to increase NIL opportunities.

Perhaps you can try to stay on topic. As of now, the players don't use school logos so what right exists for schools to limit deals in any way?

I haven't seen an ad with football players without the UK logo or a UK jersey. What have I missed that is out there?

 

[Magilla Gorillla]

Well, that isn't true or we wouldn't have NIL to begin with. Just because the rule exists doesn't mean it isn't going to be struck down upon challenge.

What are you talking about. Ultimately players can sign any NIL deal they want. UK might not be OK with it but the only thing UK can do is stop them from being a UK athlete. Ultimately they can sign whatever deal they want.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

If the courts view NIL as a basic right of personal ownership and use, the state won't win by trying to usurp that right with legislation.

I agree but as of now UK can still veto anything they don't like or that competes with any of it's partners. The eo and then the law also barred nil deals with alcohol, tobacco, CBD, or gambling. All things of which our state has plenty.

They need to remove all restrictions and let the free market just sort it all out. It will be painful for a few years but eventually enough cases like the LSU QB will burn everyone and it will be fixed. People will make the contracts tied to performance, installments, etc to protect themselves which also makes the playing field more level because it stops the blind huge up front payments

 

[Girthang]

Yes.

If the rights belong to an adult, what right does the school have to govern it? Now, if there was a UK emblem involved . . . .

Maybe the same rights they have to limit firearms on school property, though it's a fundamental right to bear arms.

I'm not talking about NIL sales, but pay-for-play or selling autographed photos anywhere on campus. The school has rights as well, but they shouldn't be able to supercede constitutional rights. Yet, they do in more than one way these days.

There are membership rights that can supercede the rights of an individual if they CHOOSE to join an organization that doesn't recognize those rights. Telling an organization of willing membership that they must allow something that is against their rules of membership is an overreach of authority, unless the organization willingly submits to such an authority.

A person's image is not protected by the constitution (and doesnt need to be), but it IS NEVERTHELESS considered a right of ownership up to a point. These rights are and have been abused by govts for millenia. Out govt was set up to be different, but is failing its mandate on a number of fronts right now.

We were set up to be a nation of people with a govt of necessity, but a govt that was purposefully limited in its power from the start to harm the individual or the God-given rights thereof. It was supposed to be an extension of the people, not to rule over them. It has long ago ceased to be as it was designed. (Even the founders knew it would happen if the populace became too complacent.

If the ncaa is to be considered an amateur athletic association, it MUST protect its amateur status just as an S Corp must protect its structure for tax purposes. The ncaa cannot allow players to be paid to play for a specific program and remain an amateur athletic association. If the "amateur" restriction is or has been removed by the association or the governing bodies it answers to, then there is little point in addressing this ever again. If there remains a special tax status for "amateur" athletics as a non for-profit seeking organization, and the ncaa has no way to enforce them because of a court ruling, then the court, govt, or the agencies in charge need to amend their rulings and codes OR order the dissolution of the association.

When the athletes of member programs are being paid by "boosters" of a program under whatever pretense or guise they choose, there is a conflict of interest for the program because this makes the athletes professionals rather than amateurs. You can't get around the conflict by saying it's NIL. You def can't get around it when the athletes are contractually required to play for a certain program to get their remuneration. Under the current system that is. The ncaa as an organization, the courts, and the agencies MUST rule on this properly or be dissolved, imo.

I'm guessing they create an exemption or special tax class for the ncaa as an association to allow it, and it really is that simple, if it hasn't already been done and not well publicized. Imo, it SHOULD eliminate any donations from being charitable, however, as the schools that allow pay for play are clearly for-profit at that point.

 

[Glenn's take]

It's already pay for play. I am actually for that. Just quit spending the money you could be paying them with on other thing.
The collective is another thing. Some wacko is going to contribute to one of things and get pissed when the guy transfers. Then it will turn bad.

 

[Tubbyfan78]

You are buying his endorsement. You don’t own the guy. Like I said, you can put all the restrictions in place you want, but I dont recommend it. Some other school will just offer without restriction and you lose.

 

[Tf2217]

The NCAA owns college sports.
Just have a cap if they shoot down the cap then no one said that player who thinks he’s worth more than the cap has to play in a NCAA league, maybe they can train themselves and make the draft in 3 years..

 

[Magilla Gorillla]

The NCAA owns college sports.
Just have a cap if they shoot down the cap then no one said that player who thinks he’s worth more than the cap has to play in a NCAA league, maybe they can train themselves and make the draft in 3 years..

The school presidents are the NCAA. It’s not some 3rd party organization, it’s the presidents of the schools.

 

[catben]

You are buying his endorsement. You don’t own the guy. Like I said, you can put all the restrictions in place you want, but I dont recommend it. Some other school will just offer without restriction and you lose.

And this is my problem with UK and JMI charging our athletes WAAAYYYY too much for the UK logo. Which in the long run will actually LOWER the value of the UK logo if our athletes can’t compete with the other schools and our awesome fans lose their passion for UK sports.

Just because JMI paid WAAAAY too much for the rights to UK, doesn’t have to mean they are willing to LOWER the value of the product they OVERPAID FOR.

If a happy medium can be established, it would BENEFIT all parties involved!!

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

What are you talking about. Ultimately players can sign any NIL deal they want. UK might not be OK with it but the only thing UK can do is stop them from being a UK athlete. Ultimately they can sign whatever deal they want.

You twist everything, just stop. Yes, I can sign NIL contracts and so can you, good luck with that. Now, back to reality, UK approves every deal for players. Why?

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I agree but as of now UK can still veto anything they don't like or that competes with any of it's partners. The eo and then the law also barred nil deals with alcohol, tobacco, CBD, or gambling. All things of which our state has plenty.

They need to remove all restrictions and let the free market just sort it all out. It will be painful for a few years but eventually enough cases like the LSU QB will burn everyone and it will be fixed. People will make the contracts tied to performance, installments, etc to protect themselves which also makes the playing field more level because it stops the blind huge up front payments

Yep. It won't be long until the NIL lawsuits crank up. The courts won't have any choice at this point but to support a players right to do what he/she wants in regards to NIL. Now if the players were doing this wearing school gear in any way, I can see the right to limit what they do but otherwise, most if not all of these current restrictions will go away.

 

[Magilla Gorillla]

You twist everything, just stop. Yes, I can sign NIL contracts and so can you, good luck with that. Now, back to reality, UK approves every deal for players. Why?

The same reason Alabama, Georgia, and every other school in the country do. They just don’t have fans with a vested interest in shitting on the program. They have standards and they have contracts that they have to honor.

 

[The-Hack]

I haven't seen an ad with football players without the UK logo or a UK jersey. What have I missed that is out there?

And I haven't seen one with a UK logo, or official jersey. Look, again, carefully: either Levis was wearing a generic Blue Jersey, or had rolled up the sleeves to conceal the checkboard pattern and UK logo.

Same with Pascal and the dentistry ad, last year.

Same with the Knoxville Hendon Hooker Mercedes ad; a generic Orange shirt, strolling among Mercedes, with a backdrop of the World's Fair Ball 400 yards from Neyland Stadium, but nary a whiff of the stadium, itself, or a UT logo or reference.

 

[Magilla Gorillla]

And this is my problem with UK and JMI charging our athletes WAAAYYYY too much for the UK logo. Which in the long run will actually LOWER the value of the UK logo if our athletes can’t compete with the other schools and our awesome fans lose their passion for UK sports.

Just because JMI paid WAAAAY too much for the rights to UK, doesn’t have to mean they are willing to LOWER the value of the product they OVERPAID FOR.

If a happy medium can be established, it would BENEFIT all parties involved!!

You think JMI charges more than Alabama or Georgia? LOL at how clueless the KSR sheep are. Do you have a problem with how much Matt Jones charges for beer? If he charged half price fans would have more money to give to collectives. Just using your logic.

Again, every other school in the country charges for the use of their likeness and logos, some a lot more than JMI but the KSR frauds act like this is unique to Kentucky. The only thing unique to Kentucky is fans more loyal to a radio host than the program.

 

[catben]

You think JMI charges more than Alabama or Georgia? LOL at how clueless the KSR sheep are. Do you have a problem with how much Matt Jones charges for beer? If he charged half price fans would have more money to give to collectives. Just using your logic.

Again, every other school in the country charges for the use of their likeness and logos, some a lot more than JMI but the KSR frauds act like this is unique to Kentucky. The only thing unique to Kentucky is fans more loyal to a radio host than the program.

I am in NO WAY affiliated with Matt Jones.

But, if I loved going to and eating at his restaurant/bar, but suddenly the atmosphere, food and drinks started going downhill, but he raised the prices then the staff was no longer accommodating to the customers and the food wasn’t great anymore, WHY would I continue to patronize his establishment????

That is where UK Athletics is headed if this doesn’t become more beneficial to the kids that are being recruited to places that are doing a much better job accommodating those same kids.

JMI and UK’s ALL-Powerful Logo will fade away. Is that what you want??!!! From your responses it sure sounds that way!

I want UK to prosper!!!

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

The same reason Alabama, Georgia, and every other school in the country do. They just don’t have fans with a vested interest in shitting on the program. The have standards and they have contracts that they have to honor.

I think this point keeps going over your head. You defend schools to a strange level. Anyway, the point is, while a school may have a contract why does the player have to avoid a contract that may conflict with the schools? In other words, why does the schools rights outweigh the players rights?

 

[Magilla Gorillla]

I think this point keeps going over your head. You defend schools to a strange level. Anyway, the point is, while a school may have a contract why does the player have to avoid a contract that may conflict with the schools? In other words, why does the schools rights outweigh the players rights?

They don’t have to avoid any contract, no one is forced to attend UK. Every athlete does of their own free will and agrees to abide by UK’s rules and regulations in the process. Every player has the right to wear whatever shoes the want, but if they want to play in a game for UK they have follow their rule’s regulations and guidelines and wear Nike. Again, they can wear whatever shoe they want or do whatever deal they want but if they’re a student athlete at UK they must abide by UK’s rules. I’m not sure why that’s so hard to get.

 

[Magilla Gorillla]

I am in NO WAY affiliated with Matt Jones.

But, if I loved going to and eating at his restaurant/bar, but suddenly the atmosphere, food and drinks started going downhill, but he raised the prices then the staff was no longer accommodating to the customers and the food wasn’t great anymore, WHY would I continue to patronize his establishment????

That is where UK Athletics is headed if this doesn’t become more beneficial to the kids that are being recruited to places that are doing a much better job accommodating those same kids.

JMI and UK’s ALL-Powerful Logo will fade away. Is that what you want??!!! From your responses it sure sounds that way!

I want UK to prosper!!!

This is the greatest era of UK football in your life and the 2023 team is the most talented team we’ve had on paper and you classify that as going downhill? In what way are we going downhill? Anything for the narrative. No matter how ridiculous , tear down the program for the narrative.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

They don’t have to avoid any contract, no one is forced to attend UK. Every athlete does of their own free will and agrees to abide by UK’s rules and regulations in the process. Every player has the right to wear whatever shoes the want, but if they want to play in a game for UK they have follow their rule’s regulations and guidelines and wear Nike. Again, they can wear whatever shoe they want or do whatever deal they want but if they’re a student athlete at UK they must abide by UK’s rules. I’m not sure why that’s so hard to get.

That isn't at all what I said.

 

[catben]

This is the greatest era of UK football in your life and the 2023 team is the most talented team we’ve had on paper and you classify that as going downhill? In what way are we going downhill? Anything for the narrative. No matter how ridiculous , tear down the program for the narrative.

This is the first year for NIL and our biggest donors have foot the bill this year for the transfers, that won’t be the case going forward. So we are going to need EVERY advantage possible to compete, especially when Texas and Oklahoma enter the SEC.

So, UK and JMI better make sure the players can MAXIMIZE their profitability going forward if they want the UK brand to stay relevant. What does JMI and UK gain if UK fizzles out???

 

[bigblueinsanity]

This is the first year for NIL and our biggest donors have foot the bill this year for the transfers, that won’t be the case going forward. So we are going to need EVERY advantage possible to compete, especially when Texas and Oklahoma enter the SEC.

So, UK and JMI better make sure the players can MAXIMIZE their profitability going forward if they want the UK brand to stay relevant. What does JMI and UK gain if UK fizzles out???

Completely misplaced to think average fans are going to competitively fund nil. Never going to happen. This should be a nonstarter every time someone like Mitch mentions this nonsense

 

[Girthang]

The school presidents are the NCAA. It’s not some 3rd party organization, it’s the presidents of the schools.

Presidents or ADs?

 

[Girthang]

Completely misplaced to think average fans are going to competitively fund nil. Never going to happen. This should be a nonstarter every time someone like Mitch mentions this nonsense

Especially given UKs poor track record of working with small and local businesses and individuals. They made it extremely hard for them to even promote watching games at their restaurants and such, among other things. UK is gonna need to stick close to the big boosters for NIL in order to survive given the effect inflation will have on everyone

 

[Girthang]

And I haven't seen one with a UK logo, or official jersey. Look, again, carefully: either Levis was wearing a generic Blue Jersey, or had rolled up the sleeves to conceal the checkboard pattern and UK logo.

Same with Pascal and the dentistry ad, last year.

Same with the Knoxville Hendon Hooker Mercedes ad; a generic Orange shirt, strolling among Mercedes, with a backdrop of the World's Fair Ball 400 yards from Neyland Stadium, but nary a whiff of the stadium, itself, or a UT logo or reference.

Lol. I looked carefully.

There was a huge billboard on New Circle and a different advertiser on Nicholasville Rd with busts of multiple players in UK jerseys. If you look carefully at UK jerseys, the logo isn't on the front of the jersey. There is a "KENTUCKY" embroidered just under the collar.

I think people are vastly over-estimating the need for UK logos and clearly obvious UK jerseys. Maybe it's just the talking points for local businesses wanting to advertise game day sales, viewing, and special events. I understand their frustration with UKs heavy hand (which goes back decades).

However, if it's truly NIL then the UK logo aspect doesn't matter, and most football fans will recognize the players more and more over time.

 

[Magilla Gorillla]

This is the first year for NIL and our biggest donors have foot the bill this year for the transfers, that won’t be the case going forward. So we are going to need EVERY advantage possible to compete, especially when Texas and Oklahoma enter the SEC.

So, UK and JMI better make sure the players can MAXIMIZE their profitability going forward if they want the UK brand to stay relevant. What does JMI and UK gain if UK fizzles out???

Your entire premise is false because you’re clueless as to how the real world works. Everyone, literally everyone does NIL without logos and it doesn’t hurt them but is somehow devastating to UK. That’s complete BS and it’s just you forwarding Matt Jones agenda and narrative. You all don’t give to collectives, you don’t follow players on social media, you don’t follow UK team accounts and coaches on social media, you don’t do any of the things that help NIL. You just spew ignorance about JMI for Matt Jones. JMI has deals with several school but it’s only a problem at one, UK where frauds lie to forward KSR’s agenda.

 

[Cat06]

Just make the NIL deal an annual renewal option for the Collective.

While they are at it, throw in a clause that they have to attend any Bowl game anytime they are eligible, and leaving the team during the season will result in that percentage of the season remaining being deducted from their payment.

I get that the trademarks for UK require a license payment, but the number I heard was $150,000. Can't they give the athletes a discount on that to persuade them to come to UK?

 

[Magilla Gorillla]

Just make the NIL deal an annual renewal option for the Collective.

While they are at it, throw in a clause that they have to attend any Bowl game anytime they are eligible, and leaving the team during the season will result in that percentage of the season remaining being deducted from their payment.

I get that the trademarks for UK require a license payment, but the number I heard was $150,000. Can't they give the athletes a discount on that to persuade them to come to UK?

The athletes don’t pay that, businesses do. That’s UK’s name image and likeness, not the players.