Washington QB
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
Any more detail on the specifics on enforcement here? Read the article but can’t see twitter comments
I still love that an NIL contract can require you to play for a certain school.
Just another reason to HATE NIL and the portal.
Have to get this BS under control and quickly!
Have to get this BS under control and quickly!
This is going to get very complicated legally. There is a piece of this that’s revenue share direct from the university. The general principle of NIL is that it’s the name, image, and license of the player, independent of the university. It’s been the whole argument from the beginning, that this isn’t pay for play, it’s just players profiting off of what’s there’s. It’s very murky to try and tie that part of it to “you only get this $ if you play for this school.” That’s totally at odds with how NIL is defined, even though it’s all been mixed together. Now you’ve got revenue share all mixed in. It’s a huge huge mess that is completely off the rails.
I’m not surprised. Another nail in the coffin
You’ve got to have some sort of lock in clause for this or anyone that misses on their targets will just go poach someone else’s
But that’s the point- why would you care if they go somewhere else if you are just paying for their NIL rights? Thats the entire joke.
Its all pretty much a fiction, but, if you assume the school is actually using the NIL rights of the athlete, then they only want those rights if the athlete actually plays for the school. You dont want a player promoting ticket sales if he doesn't play for you.
So, I can understand a clause that says the school doesn't have to pay if the player leaves. That just makes sense.
But if the player leaves, is he really breaching the contract? I mean, he licensed his NIL rights to the school...if the school no longer wants to use his NIL rights thats the school's choice. Even if he leaves, the school could still demand the use of his NIL, they just dont want it anymore.
In this era of open transfers and contracts that allegedly are NOT pay-for-play, I think an NIL agreement purporting to bind an athlete to a school is unenforceable. At best a school could slip in a buyout clause as liquidated damages, but even that is limited to a reasonable value.
And in this particular case, I dont see how Washington is damaged at all. They have plenty of opportunity to find a replacement.
Conferences try to lock them down with the Financial Aid Agreement but that only prevents in-conference schools from poaching. The NCAA just needs something where a player has to declare with a school and cannot sign any NIL without first declaring for a school. Once declared the player is ineligible to play if they transfer before completing that year. I'm sure there are some legal pitfalls there but I think most every school would agree to some loose terms like that.
P
…..that’s all I got….
”Hey, I agreed to pay for your likeness when you were wearing a Washington jersey. Now that you’re wearing a different color your likeness has changed and I don’t want to pay.”
…..that’s all I got….
Revenue sharing made some sense when the idea was the Collectives were shutting down. Pay the players openly through the schools, and the ones who can find legit third party NIL can make extra money on the side. Sounds good.
The only problem was their refusal to call revenue sharing a salary, and instead calling it an NIL payment from the school. That was stupid.
But, when the schools caved to the Collectives and allowed them to continue making direct NIL payments to the players, the whole plan became stupid. Now the players get money from the Collectives and from the schools, and the only difference is contracts with the Collective have to pass through the Clearinghouse.
Its a bunch of hoops to jump through just to avoid calling the money a pay-for-play salary.
It's the biggest fallacy of all that the 'revenues should be shared with the workers'. That is horseshit. The schools and the system is the moneymaker.......NOT the players.
The players should be paid from either true NIL deals (which I have absolutely no problem with) or from the NIL collectives (i.e. gifts created for booster fake NIL demand).
If anything from the schools, it should be a raised stipend across the board to all players.
I mean we literally could not jack this up anymore than we have. The lawsuit-imposed actions like NIL and immediate/unlimited transfers are one thing. They suck but they are what they are. But rev share was completely created by the schools and conferences, completely unneeded and solved nothing.
A couple of these kids (and handlers/agents) need to be sued to Bolivia to set the tone.
Schools are trying to run a business, and the raw goods just decide not to show up. While everyone says the money is unsustainable, I think the enforcement and clarity of the rules are the issue.
Schools are trying to run a business, and the raw goods just decide not to show up. While everyone says the money is unsustainable, I think the enforcement and clarity of the rules are the issue.
If I was a player - I would never want to be paid through the collective. Give me the $$$ under the table.
Its not "Revenue sharing" either, they just call it that. It's a salary cap, loosely based on an average of media rights income to the schools. Its a total fiction.
Like I said, paying the players a salary through the schools made some sense when the Collectives were going to be shut out. They just wouldnt call it a salary or a cap. But once they allowed the Collectives to stay in business, none of it made sense.
I didn't read every word of these threads so sorry if mentioned, but...
Now they are in a situation of forcing a player to play for them that said he doesn't want to be there. How much are you going to get out of him? Does he play hard or sulk? I'm trying to figure out how I would feel about that player if he openly said he doesn't want to play for MSU and we made him legally.
Now they are in a situation of forcing a player to play for them that said he doesn't want to be there. How much are you going to get out of him? Does he play hard or sulk? I'm trying to figure out how I would feel about that player if he openly said he doesn't want to play for MSU and we made him legally.
Is the issue here he signed a rev share agreement or that he signed an NIL agreement or is it both? Seems some are pairing them as the same. The NIL agreements haven’t seemed to hold water in the courts for the school, all for the player. Seems to me rev share will now be litigated to set the tone for wether they are binding agreements now.
And as for NIL, should it not be changed to PFP, afterall that’s all it is for the majority. How many are actually being paid for their name image and likeness? In reality.
And as for NIL, should it not be changed to PFP, afterall that’s all it is for the majority. How many are actually being paid for their name image and likeness? In reality.
The real solution to this is put them on real contracts, like every other professional sports league on the planet. College sports is professional sports now. It has to be treated as such.
Looks like he might go to LSU. Are we surprised? Not in the least.
The way I understand it, Washington is seeking to enforce its revenue sharing agreement with the player. The school isnt really in position to enforce any deal with its Collective.
The confusion comes from calling the revenue sharing agreements NIL contracts. The schools dont want to admit it is pay-for-play, so the contracts are set up as NIL licenses, even though the schools are barely using the athletes' NIL, if at all. Bit those agreements are exempt from Clearinghouse scrutiny.
The schools have been sticking all types of clauses in the Revenue sharing agreements, including multi year terms, participation requirements, and buyout clauses. Some of it needs to be litigated.
Thats the part I dont really understand. You cant force him to play. It should just be a question of money.
In a professional league, the player cant play for another team, but he can quit, or maybe move to a different league. He just may owe some money for doing so.
If the player's new team has to pay a buyout to Washington, then that is supposed to count against the new school's revenue sharing cap.
Thanks. That’s what I was thinking. The Rev Sharing will be litigated since it’s new, it must. Seems like that is the issue here. Also, it seems that conference handling the Rev Share paperwork in attempt to get out front of the litigation, since they lost on PFP(NIL).
Like you said lots of confusion on terms. You seem to think it’s just like I thought. It’s just funny how mixed up, and misinformed it all really is. Seems it could’ve been handled a lot better.
I think we should just change NIL to PFP here and folks could understand it more easily. There’s Rev sharing and there’s PFP.
I have very little sympathy for the schoolsi here, since they are the ones who dont want to admit the players are employees, or even independent contractors.
UT AD Danny White has been very vocal that the terminology is nonsense. I saw an interview with Stricklin discussing the role of a GM where he mentioned "player salaries", then kinda laughed and said "Im not supposed to call it that."
UT AD Danny White has been very vocal that the terminology is nonsense. I saw an interview with Stricklin discussing the role of a GM where he mentioned "player salaries", then kinda laughed and said "Im not supposed to call it that."
It is all about money and damages. Courts won't enforce specific performance, and Washington would be stupid to even try if they could. You want that guy gone, but you want to get paid.
Even if they refuse to put his name in the portal all he has to do is transfer to LSU and walk on and then collect his money.
This is actually true. That why you find say a plethora of Dak Prescott car/furniture/restaurant commercials in the metroplex but no Joe Burrow commercials. If Dak was traded, those Dak commercials would go away pretty quickly. He is on the commercial because he is the Cowboys' quarterback, not because he is Dak Prescott.
Why do we have Jake Mangum commercials during our sports broadcasts and no Eli Manning ones?
Restrictions to avoid calling it pay for play were eliminated this summer. It’s wide open
Not true. The Rev Sharing is compensation for NIL. AI just doesn’t understand that.
Yes you can have third party NIL deals. But the university rev share is compensation for NIL. It was the entire point of the House case