CFB player Contract disputes - not the same as the other disputes with NCAA

[blion72]

The CFB players have come to think they are free to do whatever they want, when they want and get paid whatever they want under "NIL". This condition was the direct result of litigation against the NCAA, which has enabled unrestricted free agency and pay for play (pretending that it is NIL). Since the NCAA cannot legally restrict any activity by players, they can now transfer into a school long after a normal student could transfer in and seem to have infinite eligibility. That has led now to guys seeking to play 7, 8 or 9 years, or come back from pros to college.

While the NCCA is powerless, the schools may not be. We are seeing that players have contracts for their "NIL services" and payments. The contracts may be with the schools or a third-party collective firm and state their NIL value for services. The UW v Demond, the Duke QB, the Dabo situation are a combination of tampering and contracts. While tampering may be an NCAA issue, interfering with a contract does not involve the NCAA. this is all contract law, and the NCAA is not a party to the dispute. it is the school v the player directly or as 3rd party beneficiary to the firm's contract. Of course, the firm could also suit the player for contract enforcement. The players' lawyers will try to fight for the players under some type of employee contract limitation. Their problem is that these are not pay for play - remember all the arguments have been this is NIL value (OBannon) and anti-trust. That doesn't work on a single school unless you can prove collusion. It is very hard to void a contract, so the schools could seek remedy as performance - "you signed it so now you need to fulfill your obligation". No state is going to try and pass a law that their citizens and organizations do not have to follow contracts.

This may be the key to controlling or reducing some of the chaos. Schools and their 3rd party firms suit players.

 

[KingLando]

It's way more complicated than this IMO
I don't think people are going to like how the courts are going to rule

 

[Bison13]

Deion is now charging fines to players who miss meetings and even for bad social media posts. He’s viewing NIL as a contract in that way, can’t wait to see how the media portrays his idea.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

The CFB players have come to think they are free to do whatever they want, when they want and get paid whatever they want under "NIL". This condition was the direct result of litigation against the NCAA, which has enabled unrestricted free agency and pay for play (pretending that it is NIL). Since the NCAA cannot legally restrict any activity by players, they can now transfer into a school long after a normal student could transfer in and seem to have infinite eligibility. That has led now to guys seeking to play 7, 8 or 9 years, or come back from pros to college.

While the NCCA is powerless, the schools may not be. We are seeing that players have contracts for their "NIL services" and payments. The contracts may be with the schools or a third-party collective firm and state their NIL value for services. The UW v Demond, the Duke QB, the Dabo situation are a combination of tampering and contracts. While tampering may be an NCAA issue, interfering with a contract does not involve the NCAA. this is all contract law, and the NCAA is not a party to the dispute. it is the school v the player directly or as 3rd party beneficiary to the firm's contract. Of course, the firm could also suit the player for contract enforcement. The players' lawyers will try to fight for the players under some type of employee contract limitation. Their problem is that these are not pay for play - remember all the arguments have been this is NIL value (OBannon) and anti-trust. That doesn't work on a single school unless you can prove collusion. It is very hard to void a contract, so the schools could seek remedy as performance - "you signed it so now you need to fulfill your obligation". No state is going to try and pass a law that their citizens and organizations do not have to follow contracts.

This may be the key to controlling or reducing some of the chaos. Schools and their 3rd party firms suit players.

You're making a distinction between the Universities and The NCAA - the Universities are the NCAA (i.e., the Universities themselves created the NCAA as a self-regulatory Member Organization - specifically, the Presidents/Chancellors of the Universities are the University Representative at the NCAA.).

Additionally, the courts have already issued opinions that restricting athletes eligibility to 5 years is almost certainly a violation of the Sherman Act (i.e., Anti-Trust Laws which the NCAA does not have the requisite "Anti-Trust Exemption" which they would need to place such limits on athletes ability to play and be paid). IOW, the courts have already issued opinions that the Universities and their Member Institution, the NCAA, are clearly engaging in Interstate Commerce with their Revenue-Sharing NIL Contracts with their athletes and artificially restricting their eligibility to participate without an Anti-Trust Exemption is a clear Sherman Act Violation.

 

[blion72]

You're making a distinction between the Universities and The NCAA - the Universities are the NCAA (i.e., the Universities themselves created the NCAA as a self-regulatory Member Organization - specifically, the Presidents/Chancellors of the Universities are the University Representative at the NCAA.).

Additionally, the courts have already issued opinions that restricting athletes eligibility to 5 years is almost certainly a violation of the Sherman Act (i.e., Anti-Trust Laws which the NCAA does not have the requisite "Anti-Trust Exemption" which they would need to place such limits on athletes ability to play and be paid). IOW, the courts have already issued opinions that the Universities and their Member Institution, the NCAA, are clearly engaging in Interstate Commerce with their Revenue-Sharing NIL Contracts with their athletes and artificially restricting their eligibility to participate without an Anti-Trust Exemption is a clear Sherman Act Violation.

the fact that the schools are members of the NCAA is true, and the NCAA not having an A/T exemption has been what enabled the lawsuits to get traction. However, in the recent cases of the QBs at a school, enrolled and committed and then suddenly leaving is not the same situation. While an individual school or the NCAA cannot limit the players movements under rules, the fact the player signed a contract with the school or 3rd party firm like collective for "NIL services" has nothing to do with anti-trust. This situation would be contract law, and involve interstate commerce. That means for the player to win in court it would take coming up with a way to void the contract. This is very difficult - try telling the bank that the contract you signed for a loan is not valid or you don't want to pay so are voiding the contract. I don't see how players are going to win. i wish Duke had gone to court in Durham - assume Miami came up with a truck load of money to pay Duke so settlement was a good option. UW made it clear they were going to push to the limit with Demond so he wisely came back. We need one school counsel to be an attack dog and pursue the contract enforcement with a remedy that will make all pause. surprised Clemson did not do this given Dabo's comments.

on a completely separate matter is it true that one of the SEC schools accused LSU or Florida as having collectives that were guilty of tax evasion and sent evidence to the IRS? it was on ESPNU radio but i only got the end. i did not see any links re this topic.