I’m sure they’re very good at what they do. That said, I’m not sure federal courts are gonna really allow a 3rd party (NCAA) to control private commerce between a private business and an individual. Will be interesting to see them argue what is “fair market value” in a market that is completely unregulated and changes by the hour.
Any "take" on this subject will likely arrive at any desired answer, depending on how the question is framed.
The Alston case did not frame the question as you have (third party "controlling" private commerce).
The Supreme Court quoted the 9th circuit in saying that the district court "struck the right balance in crafting a remedy that both prevents anticompetitive harm to Student-Athletes while serving the procompetitive purpose of preserving the popularity of college sports".
Thus, there can be compensatory limitations that strike a balance, as described above.
In the case of the review and limitation of NIL deals, Deloitte will be weeding out those that attempt to pay inflated amounts going above and beyond market prices for the stated services. Those NIL deals that appear to be pay-for-play will not be approved.
What is most likely to happen is that MOST of the "Collective" NIL deals will fall by the wayside. Either the Collectives will dissolve and no longer offer such deals, or they will attempt to do so and be rejected in situations where they run afoul of certain parameters. It should be noted that Collectives have been found to be entities that are affiliated or associated with universities.
On the other hand, it is much more likely that "normal business" TRUE NIL deals will be approved more often than not. If a company is legitimately paying a player for true NIL opportunities, and the compensation is not inflated to the level appearing to be "pay-for-play", then there are no limitations, only approval.
So long as the system continues to function as I just described it, then it will likely be found to comport with the Alston case.
