Transfer Portal Tracker

JTS said:
Wisconsin wants all the benefits of a pay to play contract without the obligations of being an employer. NIL is compensation for a player's personal brand separate from playing the sport. If you are paying a player to play then you should have a pay to play contract not NIL. This is just a perfect example of the absurd twisting of reality to avoid calling these players employees. Also, that college and professional sports are not compatible.
Click to expand...
The player in question is essentially being treat like an employee. He gets paid, has health benefits, meals, books, tuition/housing, and training/instruction. He has everything thing he needs to do his job and then some. This is a much sweeter deal than the real world gets.
 
RaiderJacket said:
The player in question is essentially being treat like an employee. He gets paid, has health benefits, meals, books, tuition/housing, and training/instruction. He has everything thing he needs to do his job and then some. This is a much sweeter deal than the real world gets.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that if a school wants to pay money to a player in exchange for that player playing football for that school then you should have a contract that says that.

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that an NIL agreement is for a player's name, image, and likeness rights which has nothing to do with them playing football. In fact, the NCAA has said that NIL agreements cannot be contingent on a player attending any particular school because it is supposed to represent the player's personal brand separate from the school.
 
JTS said:
All I'm saying is that if a school wants to pay money to a player in exchange for that player playing football for that school then you should have a contract that says that.

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that an NIL agreement is for a player's name, image, and likeness rights which has nothing to do with them playing football. In fact, the NCAA has said that NIL agreements cannot be contingent on a player attending any particular school because it is supposed to represent the player's personal brand separate from the school.
Click to expand...
But if that school cannot actually use that player's name, image or likeness bc he is playing for another team, why would they have to pay anything? In a contract, both parties have to give something up and both parties have to gain something.
The player would have violated the contract. The school that entered the NIL agreement would be absolved of payment since no service was rendered.
(It's ludicrous to think that a school can gain anything using the name or image rights of someone who is playing for another school).
 
BuzzCzar said:
But if that school cannot actually use that player's name, image or likeness bc he is playing for another team, why would they have to pay anything? In a contract, both parties have to give something up and both parties have to gain something.
The player would have violated the contract. The school that entered the NIL agreement would be absolved of payment since no service was rendered.
(It's ludicrous to think that a school can gain anything using the name or image rights of someone who is playing for another school).
Click to expand...
The school would still own the rights to the player's name, image, and likeness and could profit off them as stipulated in the contract. As I understand it (which could be wrong), NIL agreements are not and cannot be contingent upon the player attending a particular school and they are also not for the player's services as a football player. The school has no contractual rights to the players services as a football player.

Schools are clearly not paying the amounts they are paying for NIL rights. They are paying players to play football, but they are not allowed pay them to play football so we have NIL agreements which are not for them to play football even though school still exxpects them to play football for them even though that is not part of the actual agreement.

When a professional player has an endorsement deal (similar to NIL), it is rarely contingent upon them playing for a particular team. If Mahomes gets traded tomorrow, he is still doing State Farm commercials. Mahomes has a valuable personal brand as an endorser completely separate from the Chiiefs unlike 99% of college football players.

The easiest thing would be for the school and player to agree to terminate the NIL agreement and go their separate ways. And in the future if you want to secure the players services as a football player, have agreement to pay them to play football.
 
All of these comments simply reinforce my belief that college football/sports really messed this up royally. NIL has been settled in the courts - it is unlawful to deny an athlete the right to profit from their own name, image and likeness. The NCAA set up a complicated system of rules that put schools and athletes on notice that an athlete profiting financially from their NIL could put a school on probation and jeopardize the athlete’s eligibility. We now know those rules are illegal.

Once the ruling came down the NCAA should have repealed all of its rules prohibiting profit for the athlete based on NIL and instructed its schools to steer clear of negotiating NIL deals for the athlete or discussing those deals with the athlete and putting in new rules that severely punish schools and coaches that in any way make pay for play promises.

Alas, the coaches and AD’s quickly pivoted,led by Saban himself, that we needed to create collectives. This was all about control. The colleges want to control the $$$, pure and simple. They don’t want athletes to deal directly with those willing to pay them to use their NIL. Even now, they fail to realize the new precedent of law, no matter how much a player gets from a collective it is illegal to restrict them from their own profit as they negotiate NIL agreements.

Contracts, pay for play, etc will not stop athletes from their own additional NIL agreements. That is a matter of law. I know that without the collectives it would have been wild and crazy. Yes, coaches would have received pressure from boosters to play and highlight those they were paying. Given time, the market would have settled,

Believe this, the insistence by the schools to try and control NIL has no regard for the welfare of the athlete nor the enjoyment of the fans. It is about controlling the dollars so that coaches, AD’s and their staffs continue to get wealthy off of intercollegiate athletics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JTS
JTS said:
All I'm saying is that if a school wants to pay money to a player in exchange for that player playing football for that school then you should have a contract that says that.

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that an NIL agreement is for a player's name, image, and likeness rights which has nothing to do with them playing football. In fact, the NCAA has said that NIL agreements cannot be contingent on a player attending any particular school because it is supposed to represent the player's personal brand separate from the school.
Click to expand...
The NCAA is living in a fantasy world and they know it.
 
BrentwoodJacket said:
The NCAA is living in a fantasy world and they know it.
Click to expand...
See the men paint their faces and cry
(Like some girl) Like some girl it makes you wonder why
City life sure is cool
But It cuts like a knife
It's your life

So forget all that you see
It's not reality, it's just a fantasy

Life is just a fantasy, can you live this fantasy life?
Life is just a fantasy, can you live this fantasy life?
 
Be careful, ya'll. We might get another last warning.

Back on topic... I like the concept of laddered incentives for players to stay put. It's also clear that portal moves shouldn't occur until bowl games are finished. In fact, if another team is considering a portal player, their performance in a bowl game should factor.

It's common sense though, and things all people want, and therefore it'll never happen.
 
gt7282c@prism said:
Be careful, ya'll. We might get another last warning.

Back on topic... I like the concept of laddered incentives for players to stay put. It's also clear that portal moves shouldn't occur until bowl games are finished. In fact, if another team is considering a portal player, their performance in a bowl game should factor.

It's common sense though, and things all people want, and therefore it'll never happen.
Click to expand...
Hard to tell what’s ok and what’s not. So best to read sometimes and log off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top