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.

BMX Bandit said:

---

revvie said:

---

Sounds like more litigation is in the future for NCAA. Especially from athletes in non revenue sports. Do you think LSU would give Olivia Dunne $2+ million in their NIL allotment.

---

there is definitely more litigation coming, both on the title IX issues and NIL issues

but this deal would not limit what Dunne is making. she is getting legitimate market value NIL.

---

and sure enough, here is federal government with the "title IX would like a word on NIL"

Title IX plaintiffs' lawyer Arthur Bryant, who is representing athletes in NIL-related case against @UOregon, tells @Sportico DoE guidance "signals that the proposed settlement in House v. NCAA should not be approved.”https://t.co/BkhRoqKwMI

— Daniel Libit (@DanielLibit) January 16, 2025

Quote:

---

The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has issued guidance regarding college athlete name, image and likeness, putting the onus on schools to ensure their male and female athletes receive proportionate NIL opportunities and resourcesregardless of whether the funding comes from external sources.

---

congress on line one.

DEpt of Labor decision could be major.

Forget how they could enforce outside NIL oppotunities but if the school is directly paying $20M plus and half has to go to womens sports I am pretty sure schools will not go anywhere near the 20 million mark annually.

Money will have to come from outside collectives

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

DEpt of Labor decision could be major.

Forget how they could enforce outside NIL oppotunities but if the school is directly paying $20M plus and half has to go to womens sports I am pretty sure schools will not go anywhere near the 20 million mark annually.

Money will have to come from outside collectives

---

Great news for women's sports in the short term. No reason that bench-warming men in revenue sports should draw a paycheck over star female volleyball players. In the long-term, just another step toward the death of Title IX. When the big boys stop providing scholarships for revenue sports, they can drop women's sports and save a ton of money.

90ags said:

---

So Bama, LSU, tu, Aub, tOSU, etc. ... all the old blue bloods will then benefit as they owned the under the table pay structure prior...it made them blue bloods...watch out for SMU

---

You're the only person on earth that thinks Auburn is a blue blood.

First of all, you can't restrict NIL. That remains illegal to do so. A company controlled by a rich alum (Nike) will be able to continue to pay players a premium similar to the NFL. They can't restrict their earnings ability or they will get shot down. They can had performance contracts etc and perhaps say it has to be with a blue blood team (more exposure means more visibility).

They can create a salary caps (employee salaries) and restrictions on what's allowed for NIL (such as school specific) which may help to an extent but they can't say your players can only make a combined XYZ amount in NIL, especially if you have a rockstar that can make $15MM+ in endorsements...that will only get struck down by an illegal institution which still does not even offer a players union for their rights. Will only get struck down once again and maybe they will ask for the NCAA to be dissolves as they aren't adapting.

At this stage, NCAA

So a techtard booster meeting has the inside scoop on salary cap restrictions coming, then haven't been announced?

Lol, sure.

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.

---

The NFL gets away with it because it is a union contract. I don't see how employers, the colleges, can get away with any of this given the SCt's antitrust rulings.

BMX Bandit said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

revvie said:

---

Sounds like more litigation is in the future for NCAA. Especially from athletes in non revenue sports. Do you think LSU would give Olivia Dunne $2+ million in their NIL allotment.

---

there is definitely more litigation coming, both on the title IX issues and NIL issues

but this deal would not limit what Dunne is making. she is getting legitimate market value NIL.

---

and sure enough, here is federal government with the "title IX would like a word on NIL"

Title IX plaintiffs' lawyer Arthur Bryant, who is representing athletes in NIL-related case against @UOregon, tells @Sportico DoE guidance "signals that the proposed settlement in House v. NCAA should not be approved.”https://t.co/BkhRoqKwMI

— Daniel Libit (@DanielLibit) January 16, 2025

Quote:

---

The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has issued guidance regarding college athlete name, image and likeness, putting the onus on schools to ensure their male and female athletes receive proportionate NIL opportunities and resourcesregardless of whether the funding comes from external sources.

---

congress on line one.

---

don't see the girls winning this one in court.

On external NIL, title ix would apply to opportunities and resources, not dollar amounts.

There's currently a lawsuit pending on this. He's what I posted on that thread:


they are not arguing that NIL is per se subject to title IX (they know its not), they are saying oregon not providing equal publicity:

Quote:

---

Oregon generally provides more publicity for the men on the men's varsity teams than it provides for the women on women's varsity teams.

Oregon posts more regularly and more information on its website and Oregon's official social media accounts about the men on its varsity men's teams than the women on its varsity women's teams.

***

Oregon provides two to three paid, full-time photographers to attend practices and games for the men's football team. The women on the beach volleyball team are not provided with a photographer at practices and are rarely provided with a photographer at competitions, even when competing at conference championships.

Oregon's lack of publicity support hinders the women's teams' fundraising efforts and reduces the teams' visibility on campus.

***

Oregon provides its male and female student-athletes with a wide array of publicity and other treatments and benefits to increase their NIL-related training, opportunities, and income, both directly and by working with and through its NIL collective, Division Street, https://www.on3.com/nil/collectives/division-street-4/, and Opendorse, the Oregon Ducks NIL Marketplace, https://opendorse.com/oregon-ducks. .

Through these actions, Oregon provides its male student-athletes with much greater NIL-related training, opportunities, and income than its female student-athletes

***
Title IX's requirements for equal treatment and benefits are codified at 34 C.F.R. 106.41(c). The Regulations identify nine non-exclusive areas in which recipients must provide equal treatment and benefits to female and male student-athletes:

The provision of equipment and supplies;
Scheduling of games and practice time;
Travel and per diem allowance;
Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
Provision of locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities;
Provision of medical and training services;
Provision of housing and dining facilities and services; and
Publicity

---

its tying oregon to the non-university collectives. in short, oregon does not give equal publicity opportunities to women and pushes the men to the collective which hinders their NIL ability

Aston04 said:

---

So a techtard booster meeting has the inside scoop on salary cap restrictions coming, then haven't been announced?

Lol, sure.

---

Half of what he said was wrong, so glass half full

My take is that the whole college football situation is so FUBAR now they will never be able to put the Jeanie back in the bottle to fix it.

Trigger warning to Greg.wh and other libs


Cruz chimes in:

Sen. Ted Cruz releases a statement to @YahooSports on the Department of Ed’s Title IX guidance, criticizing the decision as a death blow to many college athletic programs and suggesting it will be rescinded when Donald Trump takes over. pic.twitter.com/Pkh3zpWQCS

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) January 17, 2025

For those that don't know, fixing college athletics is a major issue for Cruz. He's now a chair of the Senate commerce committee, so a bill this year should not be a surprise to anyone

Seems the OCR went a step further than just equal opportunity.

Spotigo Article
"OCR further stressed that even when NIL payments are made by third parties, such as booster clubs or collectives, schools remain responsible for ensuring that these funds do not create sex-based disparities"

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.

---

That's gonna be had to enforce.

So the collective teams up with a lemonade stand or anyone else that wants to siphon money thru to players. Who's to say it's illegitimate. Lots of companies lose money

Get ready for the Title IX lawsuits. Just sayin'.

Sparkie said:

---

Seems the OCR went a step further than just equal opportunity.

Spotigo Article
"OCR further stressed that even when NIL payments are made by third parties, such as booster clubs or collectives, schools remain responsible for ensuring that these funds do not create sex-based disparities"

---

From third parties it's not just opportunities, but that's a good way of summing it up.

What it does not include is equal money from third parties.