New bill about to be submitted to the House on NIL.
- Thread starter DesotoCountyDawg
- Start date
I rest easily at night knowing our legislative branch is laser-focused on the issues that affect all of our lives.
I’m sure the devil is in the details but there’s some big proposals in there that would correct some of the things that I would say most people who follow college athletics hate right now.
I wouldn't hold my breath - they'll probably just roll over aGAIN for shiitforbrains.
Just end college athletics and let the pros sort it out. You shut down college athletics and they'll be begging to play for free.
You'd rather not have college athletics than see athletes get any of the revenue? HOT TAKE right there.
It’s not a hot take to find the current system that hands unrestricted six and seven figure money to 18 year old half-brains a complete wreck and powerfully stupid.
I have no problem with them trying to fix it. It is ****** up now and something needs to be tried. I am curious to see where the politicians who are sponsoring it are coming from.
if this does pass, expect a billion immediate lawsuits challenging it
I readily admit I may finally be wrong about something, but I think l the government should stay out of this. Who cares if a bunch of rich people, or people with lots of credit, want to throw money at an 18 year old because he runs fast and jumps high? And so what if that 18 year old wants to waste it all on wine and women? Will it end well for those involved? I doubt it, but so what? Maybe this will result in people going to college to gain skills to use in the workplace post graduation. Maybe colleges look more utilitarian instead of like resorts. And, hold on to your seats, what if dorms had to have community bathrooms.
I think the courts have and will make anything Congress or the President do here irrelevant.
I thought the same thing as I was reading through the tweets. I mean, one of the cornerstones of this entire ordeal has been about removing limitations on a person’s ability to earn. Then the bill goes and puts an arbitrary limitation on an agent’s earnings….
I’m also not sure how congress can legally require a school to offer a minimum number of sports without subsidizing the losses. It would be no different than them forcing Burger King to sell a burger that knowingly had a -30% margin just because certain people like it.
Lastly, if this entire thing is going to require 60% of the Senate’s vote. Lol, good luck with that
The House settlement is only temporary, so legislative action is needed to codify the core tenants of that. Otherwise, it will be rinse and repeat all over again.
On what grounds, though? I mean, we actually have to see the bill first, but do you think it exceeds Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce, or regulate higher education? Is there some other constitutional violation that comes to mind before even reading the bill?
I have never liked the concept of Congress getting involved in this -- other than assisting with anti trust exemptions -- but I kind of like the concept of laws forcing schools, players, boosters, etc. to follow the rules.
Whether one likes the concept or not, I dont see why this issue should be a partisan one. I also find it kind of bizarre that Republicans want this type of control and Democrats presumably do not.
ETA: The bill was introduced today as a bipartisan bill...2 Dems sponsored it along with the Republicans.
Last edited:
That's like an exceptionally clean version of the men's restroom at the Noxubee County Courthouse. IYKYK.
It’s not the most important thing, but is something that has been broken by statutes not designed for college sports being applied to college sports. It’s a big enough issue they should address it.
The government can’t stay out of it unless they pass legislation clarifying that a bunch of statutes don’t apply to college sports. Would probably need to exempt college sports from Title IX also.
Whatever this legislation is, its not the end game. Its just setting the battlefield for the final showdown…..which is eventually going to be the SCOTUS ruling that, barring a collective bargaining agreement, a person’s representation as an athlete in uniform, on television, etc. IS part of their name, image, and likeness….and is just as big of a part of their marketability as an individual as anything else. Since precedent is already set that payment for NIL is legal, removing that final hurdle formally removes all guardrails, and just makes straight up pay for play essentially legal.
Congress passes law, someone from a state with unrestricted NIL laws will sue. It will get to SCOTUS, and that will be that.
Congress passes law, someone from a state with unrestricted NIL laws will sue. It will get to SCOTUS, and that will be that.
That's not going to happen.
We dont currently have federal NIL laws, and SCOTUS is not in any position to tell Congress what NIL means. SCOTUS could rule that Congress has no Constitutional authority to legislate in this area (unlikely) or it could find the language of the law vague. But if Congress writes a law defining NIL, then SCOTUS has no basis to tell Congress it is wrong.
NIL, or right of publicity, is currently a state law issue and is governed by both statute and common law. We have barely 100 years worth of case law to rely on. The only SCOTUS case we have on NIL is a ruling that the First Amendment did not give a TV station the right to intrude on a man's right of publicity by televising his entire human cannonball act.
I dont think there are any first amendment issues in play when a law states third parties can pay someone to endorse a product, but cannot pay them to play college sports.
As for State laws, go ahead and Google "federal preemption".
Last edited:
Your last paragraph is my thoughts. A massive bill being introduced to introduce sweeping regulations and market controls….unanimously supported by Republicans but expected to be almost universally opposed by Democrats. Are we in the damn twilight zone?
I dont think they have to exempt all of college sports from Title IX, but definitely exclude the payments made by the schools to the athletes.
Probably lots of grounds. For one, how can you force schools to offer 16 competitive sports? And if you try to restrict players ability to make money or their freedom to negotiate and sign with whichever schools they want, the courts are probably going to just reverse it.
There’s plenty of anti-trust precedent though. And the non-employment clause potentially violates that in a lot of ways.
I think that there is going to be a difficulty to prove some form of harm exists from unrestricted NIL payments that necessitate the reform in the first place. This is entertainment, and really nothing more.
Try and think about the same problem, but in a different setting. Say that every movie and TV production studio colluded to establish universal compensation caps for Hollywood actors. Additionally, any 3rd party endorsement opportunities that the actors received - outside of the current film- had to get approved through some 3rd party process to prove that one studio wasn’t unfairly bribing the actor to work there instead of another project that they also were interested in. If the actor wanted to quit working on the film, and forgo any further compensation owed, he could only do so in these very specific windows in time that only occur twice a year.
That all sounds patently ridiculous, right? Who really cares if Sony Pictures gets Tom Cruise for their role and Universal gets left holding the bag and has to settle for Channing Tatum? Thing is, these players are really no different than Hollywood actors in a lot of respects. They are performing live, for tens of thousands of fans, and on television for millions more. They “rehearse”, they get interviewed before / after games. They do segments for pre-game / post-game shows to promote the product (much like an actor going on Jimmy Kimmel or whatever). They do this because those in charge wanted them for whatever role it is, because they consider them the best they can afford for what they do. The only difference is the university affiliation aspect, which really has no bearing on whether or not their compensation should be tightly regulated.
You could argue all day about the business case of having a fried chicken restaurant chain signing a back-up OT to a $2 million endorsement deal, and whether that makes legitimate business sense. But ultimately its really hard to prove that there is some detriment to society that arises from people freely spending and accepting money in that way.
Last edited:
The bill exempts everyone from anti trust liability if they comply with the statute, so that problem is solved.
Congress does not have to prove it is solving any type of problem or preventing harm by passing legislation. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Congress has seized the authority to regulate institutes of higher education through federal funding.
I dont blame you for not liking the bill. I dont either. That does not make the bill unlawful or inconstitutional.
The bill is available online. It is only 30 pages long, and IMHO is gonna need some beef added. But this is the most important part (sorry for the format, but Im lazy)
(19) PROHIBITED COMPENSATION.—The term
6 ‘‘prohibited compensation’’ means—
7 (A) compensation (including an agreement
8 for compensation) to a student athlete from an
9 associated entity or individual of the institution
10 at which the student athlete is enrolled (or to
11 a prospective student athlete from an associated
12 entity or individual of an institution for which
13 the prospective student athlete is being re-
14 cruited) for any license or use of the name,
15 image, and likeness rights of such student ath-
16 lete or prospective student athlete (or any other
17 license or use), unless the license or use is for
18 a valid business purpose related to the pro-
19 motion or endorsement of goods or services pro-
20 vided to the general public for profit, with com-
21 pensation at rates and terms commensurate
22 with compensation paid to individuals with
23 name, image, and likeness rights of comparable
24 value who are not student athletes or prospec
tive student athletes with respect to such insti-
2 tution; and
3 (B) compensation to a student athlete (or
4 a prospective student athlete) if such compensa-
5 tion is paid by or on behalf of the institution
6 at which the student athlete is enrolled (or for
7 which the prospective student athlete is being
8 recruited) and results in the exceeding of the
9 pool limit established by the interstate inter-
10 collegiate athletic association of which such in-
11 stitution is a member.
(19) PROHIBITED COMPENSATION.—The term
6 ‘‘prohibited compensation’’ means—
7 (A) compensation (including an agreement
8 for compensation) to a student athlete from an
9 associated entity or individual of the institution
10 at which the student athlete is enrolled (or to
11 a prospective student athlete from an associated
12 entity or individual of an institution for which
13 the prospective student athlete is being re-
14 cruited) for any license or use of the name,
15 image, and likeness rights of such student ath-
16 lete or prospective student athlete (or any other
17 license or use), unless the license or use is for
18 a valid business purpose related to the pro-
19 motion or endorsement of goods or services pro-
20 vided to the general public for profit, with com-
21 pensation at rates and terms commensurate
22 with compensation paid to individuals with
23 name, image, and likeness rights of comparable
24 value who are not student athletes or prospec
tive student athletes with respect to such insti-
2 tution; and
3 (B) compensation to a student athlete (or
4 a prospective student athlete) if such compensa-
5 tion is paid by or on behalf of the institution
6 at which the student athlete is enrolled (or for
7 which the prospective student athlete is being
8 recruited) and results in the exceeding of the
9 pool limit established by the interstate inter-
10 collegiate athletic association of which such in-
11 stitution is a member.
To be faaaaaaiiiir, it is ****** up because they got involved in the first place.
If they comply with what statute? The bill itself? That’s somewhat circular logic. I think if a player sues the NCAA, CSC, etc., a part of the appeals process will eventually challenge the law itself, particularly as it pertains to anti-trust precedent. The aim would be to frame the law itself as violating previous precedent related to Sherman Act, etc. That doesn’t mean that a court has to rule in favor of the plaintiff, they can limit the liability based on them trying to obey the existing law in good faith. But eventually, it will still cause the entire system to crumble.
Of course not. They can pass whatever laws they want….within reason. But their inability to do this within certain grounds can open the door for subjectivity into the interpretation of constitutionality, if the law is challenged up to the highest courts. Ask yourself if a 5-4 vote of the SCOTUS to overturn the whole thing is more likely or less likely if there is no discernible harm from the current status quo? Ultimately you’ll have the 9 foremost legal experts on US case law on planet earth still not likely to all draw the same conclusion either way, so pragmatically it is certainly relevant as to whether or not the legislation provides a clear need for the public good.
As someone who would actually like to watch college football again and be able to enjoy it, I actually love the bill. But after seeing things shift even more in favor of the players every time this bear has been poked in the past 15 years….I’m extremely skeptical that we’ll ever head back the other direction over the long haul. I see this as being another poke at the bear, with a bigger stick, that the bear is going to be able to grab and beat the hell out of the hapless camper for good this time.
The Sherman Act is a statute. This will also be a statute. The only way this statute will have a problem is if they are not clear about what laws they are exempting from or if there is a constitutional concern. I can’t think of any constitutional issues with exempting colleges from antitrust issues provided they follow certain rules.
SCOTUS doesn't get to just second guess Congress.
SCOTUS cannot just second guess Congress' actions. It can rule on Constitutionality of a statute, or interpretation issues.
The bill, if it even moves forward, will likely be amended. I think there is an issue in limiting agent commissions, but that's not serious enough to doom the whole bill. Then there's is the issue of stating compensation must be commensurate to the compensation paid to other individuals, and the whole concept of having a "pool limit", i.e. salary cap, for the institutions. That needs to be clarified a bit, I think.
Should this statute ever get passed, there would be tons of litigation over whether the NIL Clearinghouse was achieving the goal of limiting compensation in a manner consistent with the statute, but I dont have a problem with that.
Im not going through this point by point, because you're not making any sense. Congress wrote the anti-trust laws, and Congress can change them, or just carve exemptions from liability.
SCOTUS cannot just second guess Congress' actions. It can rule on Constitutionality of a statute, or interpretation issues.
The bill, if it even moves forward, will likely be amended. I think there is an issue in limiting agent commissions, but that's not serious enough to doom the whole bill. Then there's is the issue of stating compensation must be commensurate to the compensation paid to other individuals, and the whole concept of having a "pool limit", i.e. salary cap, for the institutions. That needs to be clarified a bit, I think.
Should this statute ever get passed, there would be tons of litigation over whether the NIL Clearinghouse was achieving the goal of limiting compensation in a manner consistent with the statute, but I dont have a problem with that.