forums

Proposed House settlement and NIL

TheOriginalCane said:
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.
Click to expand...
💯

“Valid business purpose” and “fair market value” are common phrases with standard, legal definitions that are used every day in the business world. They are frequently used in business contracts for that reason, and have the backing of court precedent. This whole thing is going to be a litigation nightmare, but those two terms are not the reason why.

The fact that they are now saying they want collectives to become marketing agencies for brands, and are rejecting the merchandising aspect is ridiculous. So now they want the boosters to be agents for the Tuscaloosa Dodge dealership, instead of just having a fan event with the QB signing fan gear or posting social media videos? Which sounds nefarious and which sounds wholesome? Which actually works in conjunction to benefit the student-athletes at the nonprofit academic university?

If there are any law students reading this, go into sports law now…
 
Advertisement
caneingville said:
💯

“Valid business purpose” and “fair market value” are common phrases with standard, legal definitions that are used every day in the business world. They are frequently used in business contracts for that reason, and have the backing of court precedent. This whole thing is going to be a litigation nightmare, but those two terms are not the reason why.

The fact that they are now saying they want collectives to become marketing agencies for brands, and are rejecting the merchandising aspect is ridiculous. So now they want the boosters to be agents for the Tuscaloosa Dodge dealership, instead of just having a fan event with the QB signing fan gear or posting social media videos? Which sounds nefarious and which sounds wholesome? Which actually works in conjunction to benefit the student-athletes at the nonprofit academic university?

If there are any law students reading this, go into sports law now…
Click to expand...


At this moment in time, I sorely regret NOT taking my invitation to the UM Entertainment & Sports Law Review...
 
TheOriginalCane said:
At this moment in time, I sorely regret NOT taking my invitation to the UM Entertainment & Sports Law Review...
Click to expand...
I get it. I was interested in sports law, but 20 years ago there wasn’t much of a market for it. Seems like the tax thing worked out pretty well for you though!
 
caneingville said:
I get it. I was interested in sports law, but 20 years ago there wasn’t much of a market for it. Seems like the tax thing worked out pretty well for you though!
Click to expand...


Yeah.

One of my good friends accepted his bid to E&S Law Review. Wrote a TON of letters to various movie studios and eventually caught on with Touchstone. Moved to CA after graduation and stayed with Disney until he (prematurely) passed away.

The good old days of inkjet printers and snail mail. Meanwhile, I tried to contact Leigh Steinberg and never got a response. I should have made friends with Jason Rosenhaus, but he was barely ever at the law school.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top