Anything that calls for cap on NIL payment from outside parties (not NCAA members) is unconstitutional and can't be enforced. It's collusive activity and NCAA can't govern or control relationships between non-members and players without an anti-trust exemption. In the process of trying to enforce those kinds of rules without the kind of anti-trust exemption enjoyed by professional sports would set the NCAA up for a mother of all lawsuits.

I don't see courts or legislatures siding with big colleges over players.

I don't see how its unconstitutional, but a cap would certainly run afoul of antitrust laws

BMX Bandit said:

---

I don't see how its unconstitutional, but a cap would certainly run afoul of antitrust laws

---

That pesky antritrust laws make it unconstitutional..depriving the players from making a living

Quote:

---

That pesky antritrust laws make it unconstitutional..depriving the players from making a living

---

thats not how that works.

if there were no antitrust laws in place, the athletes would have no case to make

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

That pesky antritrust laws make it unconstitutional..depriving the players from making a living

---

thats not how that works.

if there were no antitrust laws in place, the athletes would have no case to make

---

The application of existing anti-trust laws prevent NCAA and schools from colluding to the detriment of the players either by limiting or fixing NIL payments. That is the exact regime that existed when the NCAA didn't allow players to benefit from their NIL. A cap or ban on outside NIL payments and outside NIL deals is just a derivative of that old system.

No argument here. As I said, capping NIL payments will violate antitrust statutes.

Krazykat said:

---

Why are there scholarships if they are getting paid?

---

Why are you jealous?

Who is capping NIL payments? They just have to fit with the rest of the market. They have to EARN their NIL. Collectives just can start paying whoever. It has to be a legit NIL deal. So Nike can offer an NIL deal to a kid. If XOM decides they want to pay more, they can.

bearcat said:

---

NIL….will not be what it is now. It will be a true NIL, where verified companies give an athlete an NIL deal and it will be tested for legitimacy. No more collectives.

---

I encourage everyone to go read Kavanaugh's opnion from the SCOTUS unanimous decision in the Alston case.

ANY action to attempt to limit what college athletes can earn will lose in court. The Supreme Court has made this crystal clear.

Nothing will be done to limit NIL compensation because it will lose in court, and everyone with a brain knows this.

I think this is all wishful thinking if that helps.

bearcat said:

---

Who is capping NIL payments? They just have to fit with the rest of the market. They have to EARN their NIL. Collectives just can start paying whoever. It has to be a legit NIL deal. So Nike can offer an NIL deal to a kid. If XOM decides they want to pay more, they can.

---

The NCAA has proposed a clearinghouse for validating NIL deals from "Associated Entity or Individual". Wilken already disputed the previous use of the more ambiguous term "booster" as well as limitations on pay that current athletes are receiving from existing NIL deals.

The Bannin attorney were opposing the settlement on broader concerns but Wilken might approve. Wilken specifically noted previously that she is not ruling taking into consideration Title IX because the ruling is based on anti-trust law and Title IX isn't relevant.

The attorneys for the House and other players former players noted their goal is to approximate 50% revenue sharing between scholarships and school originated payments for name, image, and likeness that previously schools controlled with only grants-in-aid payments. So the payment is for school promotion and use and licensing to broadcasters of student NIL over avd abce the educational benefits which now are also effectively uncapped and must meet Cost of Attendance plus other benefits. As you know: COA is used by the schools to suppress financial aid payments of all students.

"No more collectives"

That sounds like anti trust.

Aginnebraska said:

---

Anything that calls for cap on NIL payment from outside parties (not NCAA members) is unconstitutional and can't be enforced. It's collusive activity and NCAA can't govern or control relationships between non-members and players without an anti-trust exemption. In the process of trying to enforce those kinds of rules without the kind of anti-trust exemption enjoyed by professional sports would set the NCAA up for a mother of all lawsuits.

I don't see courts or legislatures siding with big colleges over players.

---

To be fair the legislature(s) to the extent they act are siding with big constituencies of voters (disgruntled fans) over players - not big colleges,. The issue crosses party lines to a certain extent and politicians with their fingers in the wind are usually more than happy to placate on a bipartisan issue - although there are obvious landmines in the form of the student athletes and the courts.

I think a lot of fans of the monied schools will be happy if their elected representatives will just hobble the student athletes' mobility again. Something like a bear trap that takes the better part of a year to gnaw off.

Another issue for this settlement in terms of outside NIL is that it goes against the laws in place in Texas and other states.

Krazykat said:

---

Why are there scholarships if they are getting paid?

---

Eventually there won't be. Save $7.5 million per year on schollys for football, another $7.5 mil on women's schollys, plus canning 4-5 women's sports

StinkyPinky said:

---

Flashdiaz said:

---

Milwaukees Best Light said:

---

Who will govern this? The NCAA still?

---

exactly! we're going to be in the same boat as before where they'll look the other way for certain schools while coming down on the rest.

---

Yep, money will be funneled back under the table again.

---

Exactly. The schools that have far more money available? They will spend it on their recruits...period.

BMX Bandit said:

---

AggieDub04 said:

---

If the schools are paying $20M then they will likely have the players sign a contract with restrictions on NIL. In this case they are receiving consideration for giving up their freedom on NIL which the courts would probably allow. The NFL has restrictions on what type of NIL deals players can do so in theory this could work.

---

that is not going to happen or work.

this settlement says in pertinent part:

NIL from outside source must be "for a valid business
purpose related to the promotion or endorsement of goods or services
provided to the general public for profit, with compensation at rates and
terms commensurate with compensation paid to similarly-situated
individuals with comparable NIL value who are not current or prospective
student-athletes at the Member Institution; provided, however, that the
NCAA or conferences will provide for neutral arbitration, as described in
Article 6, Section 2 of the Injunctive Relief Settlement, for any Member
Institution or student-athlete to contest any discipline sought to be
imposed on them for receiving payments in violation of these rules;"

in other words, if Red's auto wants to pay a player $1 million to show up at a weekend car show, they will have to show that is commensurate with the going rates for such an appearance by athletes. It creates an even bigger mess IMO.




the NFL has a collective bargaining agreement, so that is a huge difference.

---

If you're given reasonable consideration (in this case pay) and as part of that contract you accept that any NIL deal you sign has to be approved by a governing body then it would have a much better chance of holding up. Kavenaugh's entire argument hinged on the point that players are not compensated thus they are forced to give up their rights to NIL with no reasonable consideration.

My understanding is there will be salaries for players- sounds like limited to $21M in the salary pool. NIL is a whole different pool of money some players draw from.

That is not contemplated by this settlement, would violate the laws of several states, and would violate antitrust laws if ncaa tried to implement.

What possible reason could ncaa show that such a restriction has a procompetitive justification?

Such a proposal would require new federal legislation.