@TheOriginalCane @Canesfreak Correct me if I am wrong, but:
NIL is for services rendered to a company in the current year, so that 15% of future earnings in his contract is an NCAA violation? Also, doesnt each school approve NIL contracts?
There are actually a couple of interesting things in there.
First, I'm not sure if the issue is "current year" vs. "future earnings", as much as it is the TYPE of earnings. In this case, Gervon Dexter was advanced money that SHOULD be for NIL type income (autograph signings, endorsements, licensing arrangements, etc.), yet the company seems to be claiming the money paid for his athletic services rendered. And the initial purpose of the NIL rules was to keep those income streams SEPARATE.
The second thing that is interesting is that the name of the company itself includes the words "Advance Fund". So this seems to be a similar type thing as what happened with Nico at Tennessee, where he was given upfront NIL money that allowed the company he signed with to own and monetize his future NIL opportunities. To me, what seems like a big problem with THIS approach is touched on in your last question, about whether the schools approve NIL contracts. Because EVEN IF an "advance" contract was approved, how does anyone know what the company will do with NIL in the future.
It's weird. Very weird. And there are so many layers of problems and potential problems.
I find it hard to believe that a court will find in favor of the Advance Fund. Regardless of what "some people" on this board try to tell us about "IRREVOCABLE" contracts, and how "ironclad" they are.
