forums

Proposed House settlement and NIL

RF-4CCane said:
Specifically which SEC and relevant ACC states do you think will force the NCAA and conferences into collective bargaining?

Not a chance. If there is collective bargaining, it will only come from the courts.

Some Big10 states would be cool with it, but they’re not putting themselves at that disadvantage.
Click to expand...


While some of those statements may indeed be valid, I don't think we should underestimate the rapidity of potential litigation on the part of the players.

There are a LOT of factors that push the Rev-Share deals and the overall treatment of players into the "employee" designation.

The bottom line is that it is VERY hard right now to make hard-and-fast predictions about what will happen next. The "House settlement" world might not last long, at least if the player lawsuits commence soon.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
While some of those statements may indeed be valid, I don't think we should underestimate the rapidity of potential litigation on the part of the players.

There are a LOT of factors that push the Rev-Share deals and the overall treatment of players into the "employee" designation.

The bottom line is that it is VERY hard right now to make hard-and-fast predictions about what will happen next. The "House settlement" world might not last long, at least if the player lawsuits commence soon.
Click to expand...
Agree. It’s going to come down to players filing litigation, it’s just not going to come from most states in the SEC and ACC, Big12, because they are looking for competitive advantages for their schools, not equitable treatment of players.

One need only look at the Big10 & FSU contract boilerplates. They are completely pro school and anti player rights.
 
RF-4CCane said:
Agree, but that’s not collective bargaining, that’s giving their schools no outside limiting cap.
Click to expand...

Yes.

But if the House settlement is effectively mooted by virtue of a multitude of state laws that undermine the College Sports Commission regime I could see the NCAA/CSC/Conferences/Member schools finally throwing in the towel and agreeing to set up a collective bargaining system. I think this outcome is possible along with an outcome where collective bargaining is imposed by court rulings.

In the end, absent an act by Congress to grant college football with anti-trust and employment law exemption, collective bargaining will be the eventual outcome whether imposed by the courts or by virtue of state laws that moot the House settlement.
 
Tony4Canes said:
Click to expand...



Oh My God Reaction GIF
 
Advertisement
Tony4Canes said:
Click to expand...


Back to the court house we go. NCAA and schools are trying to shoe horn athletes into a collective bargaining that benefits them with the House settlement money being the cap. NIL isn't going anywhere try as they may to eliminate it and the NCAA and its members will be defeated in the courts. Just watch.
 
Clearly, the attorneys are trying to prolong this and crack the $1B level in total fees.

The reality is that there are three classes of payors, the schools (rev-share), the collectives (AFFILIATED with schools, and thus subject to heightened scrutiny), and true third-party companies not affiliated with the schools (true NIL).



1752319968070.png
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Clearly, the attorneys are trying to prolong this and crack the $1B level in total fees.

The reality is that there are three classes of payors, the schools (rev-share), the collectives (AFFILIATED with schools, and thus subject to heightened scrutiny), and true third-party companies not affiliated with the schools (true NIL).



View attachment 329975
Click to expand...
"Valid business purpose and Fair Market Value" are almost impossible to be realistically evaluated by any 3rd party entity. Valid business purpose for the school is a multi faceted evaluation ... there is impact on recruiting, roster, winning potential, TV impact, fan attendance impact etc. It isn't solely on "selling jerseys". Like you stated, their goal is to limit the funds being distributed to players to the $21M House approved settlement and virtually eliminate the NIL that was approved previously. A large number of states have already initiated legislation stating that NIL programs in their state cannot be curtailed or limited by the new entity. This is going to be a litigation nightmare.
 
Advertisement
The more caps and restrictions that are put in place, the more things will go back to the old ways. Selective enforcement and blatant cheating of the rules will live on.
 
Rickd said:
"Valid business purpose and Fair Market Value" are almost impossible to be realistically evaluated by any 3rd party entity. Valid business purpose for the school is a multi faceted evaluation ... there is impact on recruiting, roster, winning potential, TV impact, fan attendance impact etc. It isn't solely on "selling jerseys". Like you stated, their goal is to limit the funds being distributed to players to the $21M House approved settlement and virtually eliminate the NIL that was approved previously. A large number of states have already initiated legislation stating that NIL programs in their state cannot be curtailed or limited by the new entity. This is going to be a litigation nightmare.
Click to expand...


Uh...no.

Deloitte evaluates valid business purpose and FMV every day for thousands of clients. The IRS does it too.

Not to mention, you are conflating things that should not be conflated.

"Valid business purpose for the school". For the millionth time, you are referring to REV SHARE. Of which, none of those deals have been rejected.

Valid business purpose for a COLLECTIVE? Ah, now we are talking. And THOSE are the deals that are being rejected for having no valid business purpose. FOR THE COLLECTIVE. Which is a separate entity from the university.

Again, there is a difference, which you are missing here.

I'm NOT addressing the actions by state legislatures. Those may or may not have a bearing on what happens in the future.
 
Back
Top