@AtlAtty
Is the phrasing (Ruiz's response) of this messaging problematic?
I don’t think so. Is your concern over Ruiz writing that ‘because you committed to the U, now Life Wallet is now committed to you‘? Implying that it is some form of pay for play?
The reason I don’t think it is a problem is that the point of NIL for the company, putting aside the player at the moment, is for the company to market itself to potential customers using the player for advertising/marketing. So assume that company X is in Athens, GA. And its customers are primarily in North Georgia. Company X will want to use UGA players to most effectively reach its customers.
Life Wallet will always argue that it is using UM players not because Ruiz is a fan of UM, but because he believes that using UM players is the most effective way to reach his customer base.
So if we look back at Ruiz’s comment, he is basically saying that because Mesidor will play at UM, he has marketing value for Life Wallet and enhances Life Wallet’s ability to reach its customer base. Which is really the same argument every corporation engaging in NIL will make if questioned why did they use a particular player from a particular school.
Maybe we wish he had not included the word “committed” in his tweet but the overall point is that UM players have marketing value to Life Wallet.
If I am misunderstanding your question please let me know.