OK gentlemen, I’m going to reply to this direct post, to @ & to
@Dre.
First off, great topic of discussion. I’m a firm believer that sometimes a message can be lost based upon who’s delivering the msg, even if that msg has merit.
Some of my biggest pet peeves in life are liars, thieves, gaslighters, hypocrites, & those who are disingenuous. So maybe a guy like Nick Saban shouldn’t be the one delivering to Congress a message regarding the need to limit NIL when, for yrs, he coached at an institution giving away high end cars to student athletes, along w/ brown paper bags.
With that being said, there’s a lot of misinformation, conflation, & assumption going on in this thread. I also realize as humans, when faced with a bombardment of ambiguous info, or information that conflicts with personal beliefs/feelings, then it’s hard for the brain to recollect origins of arguments.
Fortunately for you fine ppl, God blessed me w/ the memory of an Elephant, & for da ladays, something else like an elephant (but that’s neither hither nor thither).
I keep seeing this argument of “intent”, & what does that mean? Well, in order to answer that ?, we must examine the genesis of how we got here. Pls follow me in this hot tub machine as I take u back to the year 2014:
It was circa August 2014, where former UCLA Bruin Ed O’Bannon decided to sue the NCAA. Now, I’ll spare u the reason “why”, as that has no merit, but let’s get into the crux of his lawsuit. He sued the NCAA for PROFITING, WHILE COMMERCIALIZING HIS NAME, IMAGE, & LIKENESS FOR NCAA EVENTS. Ed O contended that the USE of his NIL for advertisement & PROFIT w/o any momentary compensation was in violation of Antitrust laws.
In essence, the NIL precedence that was fought for was the commercializing of a current or former player’s name, image, or likeness for the profit of another entity, which included EA Sports (2009). The NCAA used the argument of amateurism to dispute such claims, that they were using said NIL for marketing promotions, only, not as a means to profit off the plaintiff’s NIL.
So again, the NIL case was regarding the COMMERCIAL usage for PROFIT by a 3rd party entity. This was the INTENT.
As a result of O'Bannon, a number of other class-action lawsuits filed by student athletes against the NCAA and colleges followed, challenging other restrictions on educational funds as being anti-competitive.
These were combined into a single suit also heard by Judge Wilken, who ruled against the NCAA in March 2019 and required the NCAA to allow students to obtain other non-cash scholarships, internships and other support beyond the full cost of attendance for academic purposes.
Some of these benefits include private tutoring, advanced class selection and access to exclusive college benefits. THE COURT WORRIED THAT ALLOWING COLLEGE ATHLETES TO PROFIT OFF THEIR NIL WOULD ALLOW LARGE SCHOOLS WITH LARGE FANBASES TO OFFER MORE MONEY TO PLAYERS.
When the NCAA made adjustments to allow NIL, in July 2021 after SCOTUS’ ruling, here were the concessions:
-NCAA could no longer restrict a student athlete from entering into sponsorship or paid endorsement deals.
-The NCAA could no longer restrict a student athlete from using an agent to help them navigate said deals
-Athletes can participate in NIL activities like autographs, camps, personal appearances, and more.
-College athletes can earn money from the commercial use of their NIL, but schools are still prohibited from paying them directly*
-Schools can help student-athletes with NIL activities, such as identifying opportunities and facilitating deals. However, student-athletes must disclose NIL arrangements to their school and maintain control over the terms of their agreements.
-The NCAA's name, image, and likeness (NIL) rules prohibit pay-for-play, which is when an athlete is paid simply for playing their sport. The NCAA requires that any NIL deal be a quid pro quo arrangement, meaning that athletes must provide something in exchange for the money they receive.*
These are supposed to be the parameters, so let’s cut the bull ****:
1. No one I’ve seen have ever said they had a problem w/ NIL; the opponents of it is the CURRENT state its in, where boosters & Universities are trying to skirt the lines of point 4 while they r still in violation of point 6.
2. No, this is not about “revenue sharing.” This is about the pure nature of NIL becoming something it was never intended for. However, I’m a big fan of the promotion of revenue sharing moving fwd.
3. No one is arguing against student athletes being able to make as much money as possible, that’s called free enterprise. The NFL can’t stop a player from starting their own podcast, entering an endorsement deal with multiple companies, etc., but they **** well can put a cap on contracts & the language of said contracts.
4. If there’s no parameters around NIL, if it remains a true pay for play, then it’s time to replace scholarships with signed year to year NIL agreements. You cannot say these guys should be treated as professionals while receiving the benefits of amateurism.
5. Collectives are working on behalf of the University; is Canes Collectives funding recruits to play ball at The University of Florida or UCF? Fck no, so let’s stop pretending these are commercial opportunities for student athletes.
I think it’s really time to stop the semantics, stop the revision of history. Here’s what I know about this fan base:
If NIL dried up from the collectives tomorrow, u will be the 1st ones complaining that parameters are needed.
Again, no one is arguing that a student athlete should not be allowed to commercialize & monetize off their names, image, & likeness; what the opponents are saying bags, whether under the table or over the table, to entice a kid to play ball at a school or even leave a school should be regulated.
