Pay the Players. Here's how.

[savbandjacket]

Here’s an idea- any school collective NIL deal contains a contractual provision between the NIL and the player that requires the payback of all funds received from the collective prior to entering the transfer portal.

Want money to play? Fine, but you’re going to play here.

Want the freedom to transfer at will? Fine, but you don’t get our money.

 

[andrew]

Here’s an idea- any school collective NIL deal contains a contractual provision between the NIL and the player that requires the payback of all funds received from the collective prior to entering the transfer portal.

Want money to play? Fine, but you’re going to play here.

Want the freedom to transfer at will? Fine, but you don’t get our money.

Pay for play as part of NIL deals is explicitly against NCAA rules and against some state laws.

 

[savbandjacket]

Pay for play as part of NIL deals is explicitly against NCAA rules and against some state laws.

It’s not pay for play. No one is saying they have to play. Just saying they can’t transfer without paying back the money received.

Think of it like a restrictive covenant. People have those all the time in contracts.

 

[andrew]

It’s not pay for play. No one is saying they have to play. Just saying they can’t transfer without paying back the money received.

Think of it like a restrictive covenant. People have those all the time in contracts.

Want money to play? Fine, but you’re going to play here.

How is it not pay for play if we're saying that we'll only pay them if they play here?

Any contract that seeks to tie funds to playing football at a particular school will surely be seen as pay for play, even if it's mildly obfuscated by saying, "It's not that we're paying you to play here, it's that we're not willing to pay you if you go play elsewhere."

 

[covingtonjacket]

It’s not pay for play. No one is saying they have to play. Just saying they can’t transfer without paying back the money received.

Think of it like a restrictive covenant. People have those all the time in contracts.

Those are very common. How about one with a very short term, say monthly, that auto-renews until one party gives the other notice? The contract will never be cancelled or revoked, it would simply expire according to its own terms. Seems like it would be hard for the NCAA to challenge it.

 

[savbandjacket]

How is it not pay for play if we're saying that we'll only pay them if they play here?

Any contract that seeks to tie funds to playing football at a particular school will surely be seen as pay for play, even if it's mildly obfuscated by saying, "It's not that we're paying you to play here, it's that we're not willing to pay you if you go play elsewhere."

They’re free to quit the team and keep the money.

Players should not be able to take from a school’s collective NIL (fan supported) and then jump somewhere else. That money should have a catch to it and the catch is restrictions on transfer ability.

 

[andrew]

They’re free to quit the team and keep the money.

Players should not be able to take from a school’s collective NIL (fan supported) and then jump somewhere else. That money should have a catch to it and the catch is restrictions on transfer ability.

You may be right morally but there's no world in which, "We'll pay you if you play football at our school, but if you then go play at another school you have to pay us back all the money" is not seen as pay for play. And pay for play as it stands is against NCAA rules and multiple state laws.

I know I sound like a broken record but this all goes back to the schools doing everything they can to say players are student athletes who happen to play football, and thus capping compensation at cost of attendance is not illegal price fixing.

As soon as the NCAA starts condoning pay for play, that argument will be untenable, even if it's the boosters they're allowing to do it. By continuing to outlaw it, they can hold onto the cap longer.

 

[andrew]

Those are very common. How about one with a very short term, say monthly, that auto-renews until one party gives the other notice? The contract will never be cancelled or revoked, it would simply expire according to its own terms. Seems like it would be hard for the NCAA to challenge it.

I'm sure that is already happening and the contracts are drawn up such that boosters can move on if the players do.

It's the catch where the player has to pay back all the money that is the problem, because it makes it indisputable that the money wasn't given for NIL purposes but rather as payment to get and keep the player at the school.

 

[H-town]

Someone needs to start a company that makes GT football action figures. NIL money can be funneled through there. It'll be a money losing company but who cares. Bonus is you get an action figure of yourself.

 

[andrew]

Someone needs to start a company that makes GT football action figures. NIL money can be funneled through there. It'll be a money losing company but who cares. Bonus is you get an action figure of yourself.

GTAA needs to start encouraging NIL period and working to support it. I know from personal experience that was not happening under the previous regime. Hopefully Batt changes it.

 

[covingtonjacket]

I'm sure that is already happening and the contracts are drawn up such that boosters can move on if the players do.

It's the catch where the player has to pay back all the money that is the problem, because it makes it indisputable that the money wasn't given for NIL purposes but rather as payment to get and keep the player at the school.

Gotcha. Well, instead of paying back the money, there could be a contractual provision where the player agrees not to enter into new NIL contracts post transfer. You can transfer, but you get no NIL money.

Another idea would be the contract would allow an option for exclusive NIL rights to the GT LLC (or whatever entity used) upon transfer for $1 or some small consideration. This would have the effect of cutting off future NIL money from another school.

The real question is whether the players would sign something like this. Star players probably would not. The whole exercise is really just spitballing, but some thought does need to go into it and it needs full support from GTAA and administration.

 

[H-town]

Gotcha. Well, instead of paying back the money, there could be a contractual provision where the player agrees not to enter into new NIL contracts post transfer. You can transfer, but you get no NIL money.

Another idea would be the contract would allow an option for exclusive NIL rights to the GT LLC (or whatever entity used) upon transfer for $1 or some small consideration. This would have the effect of cutting off future NIL money from another school.

The real question is whether the players would sign something like this. Star players probably would not. The whole exercise is really just spitballing, but some thought does need to go into it and it needs full support from GTAA and administration.

So you're saying we should not recruit star players then?

 

[covingtonjacket]

So you're saying we should not recruit star players then?

Is that what I said? I just meant players with plenty of NIL options will likely not sign an NIL deal that limits future opportunities, including transferring.

 

[Akinji07]

The rules will get changed when Bama is out of the playoffs two years in a row. You heard it here first.