forums

Protect College Sports Act [formerly “SCORE Act” thread]

Applecane said:
Can someone explain -- simply -- this to my aging, increasingly feeble mind:
Will this bill put limits on the amount of NIL money that can be raised for student athletes?
Click to expand...
Largely Yes and a little bit no. Deals like nick lennear, Malachi Toney and Amir sears’ with adidas won’t count against our cap. But obviously these are elite cases and special NIL deals.

multimedia rights companies’ NIL deals are subject to be counted against the cap; and the CSC will have the authority to decide what’s proper compensation and what’s cap circumvention by third parties.

www.nilrevolution.com

Judge Wilken Affirms Magistrate's Ruling: MMRs and Third-Party Sponsors Remain Subject to CSC Oversight

On July 2, we reported on Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins' ruling that multimedia rights companies (MMRs) and third-party brand sponsors are not
www.nilrevolution.com www.nilrevolution.com

LSU’s football roster alone is just over the 48 million dollar cap which applies to all varsity athletes at lsu. Let’s say all the other non-football lsu athletes combined make 25 million dollars.

Lsu is subject, this year, to a 5 million dollar fine for being 25 million dollars over the cap. Moreover, their 2027-2028 cap would be reduced by the amount they are over in 2026-2027, so in turn even if they want to pay more & incur the luxury tax fine, it’s fool hearted because the fines will keep increasing and future budgets will keep being lowered.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if it’s any good as I spent about 5 minutes on it with the help of AI but I sent the below to my state representatives in case anyone just wants to copy.

I urge you to oppose S. 4668, the Protect College Sports Act.
This bill will not create stability. It will lock in and worsen the massive financial divide created by unequal conference television contracts. Programs such as Florida State and Miami are among the biggest brands in college sports, yet they already compete at a structural disadvantage against Big Ten & SEC schools that receive much larger guaranteed annual conference revenue simply because of membership. Congress should not protect a system that rewards conference affiliation over the value, history, competitive success, and support of individual programs.
I also strongly oppose any federal cap on athlete compensation. Athletes create the value that produces billions for universities, conferences, broadcasters, coaches, and administrators. It makes no sense to restrict their economic opportunity while every other part of the system continues to cash in.
If this bill passes, it will create more chaos—not less. Athletes will challenge restrictions on their compensation and freedom, leading to more lawsuits, uncertainty, and public backlash. The NCAA has already faced major legal challenges over athlete-compensation restrictions; federal legislation should not be used to shield powerful institutions while limiting athletes’ rights.[congress]
Please oppose S. 4668 and any effort to move it toward a final vote.
 
cookies said:
Largely Yes and a little bit no. Deals like nick lennear, Malachi Toney and Amir sears’ with adidas won’t count against our cap. But obviously these are elite cases and special NIL deals.

multimedia rights companies’ NIL deals are subject to be counted against the cap; and the CSC will have the authority to decide what’s proper compensation and what’s cap circumvention by third parties.

www.nilrevolution.com

Judge Wilken Affirms Magistrate's Ruling: MMRs and Third-Party Sponsors Remain Subject to CSC Oversight

On July 2, we reported on Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins' ruling that multimedia rights companies (MMRs) and third-party brand sponsors are not
www.nilrevolution.com www.nilrevolution.com

LSU’s football roster alone is just over the 48 million dollar cap which applies to all varsity athletes at lsu. Let’s say all the other non-football lsu athletes combined make 25 million dollars.

Lsu is subject, this year, to a 5 million dollar fine for being 25 million dollar over the cap. Moreover, their 2027-2028 cap would be reduced by the amount they are over in 2026-2027, so in turn even if they want to pay more & incur the luxury tax fine, it’s fool hearted because the fines will keep increasing and future budgets will keep being lowered.
Click to expand...

It’s going to get messy but most big-spending schools (including ours) are likely going to circumvent the cap by using non-associated deals to pay the players in situations where the cap has to be exceeded to sign certain guys
 
Allabouttheu95 said:
Not sure if it’s any good as I spent about 5 minutes on it with the help of AI but I sent the below to my state representatives in case anyone just wants to copy.

I urge you to oppose S. 4668, the Protect College Sports Act.
This bill will not create stability. It will lock in and worsen the massive financial divide created by unequal conference television contracts. Programs such as Florida State and Miami are among the biggest brands in college sports, yet they already compete at a structural disadvantage against Big Ten & SEC schools that receive much larger guaranteed annual conference revenue simply because of membership. Congress should not protect a system that rewards conference affiliation over the value, history, competitive success, and support of individual programs.
I also strongly oppose any federal cap on athlete compensation. Athletes create the value that produces billions for universities, conferences, broadcasters, coaches, and administrators. It makes no sense to restrict their economic opportunity while every other part of the system continues to cash in.
If this bill passes, it will create more chaos—not less. Athletes will challenge restrictions on their compensation and freedom, leading to more lawsuits, uncertainty, and public backlash. The NCAA has already faced major legal challenges over athlete-compensation restrictions; federal legislation should not be used to shield powerful institutions while limiting athletes’ rights.[congress]
Please oppose S. 4668 and any effort to move it toward a final vote.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting!
 
CaneMutiny06 said:
It’s going to get messy but most big-spending schools (including ours) are likely going to circumvent the cap by using non-associated deals to pay the players in situations where the cap has to be exceeded to sign certain guys
Click to expand...
Yeup. The unknown is how big of bat the CSC/NCAA will swing in immediately restricting and limiting compensation; and issuing out fines to the forty or so athletic departments who are currently exceeding the cap. I read a ton about the IRS’ entanglement with all of this yet never completely deep-dived into the all the different facets of the settlement.

The worst case scenarios are that the ncaa + csc are basically pseudo state entities now with antitrust exemptions. From a Birds Eye point, it’s more powerful than most departments I.e education, energy, etc in how broad sweeping their regulatory framework works post-bill-passage.

Hundreds of cases like these will pop up if they are strict:


7.5 million for 18 Nebraska football players lol. We don’t even know if this is all those guys are getting from Nebraska. You can’t even field a starting eleven in all three phases with 18 guys. 48 million for every varsity athlete at a single university is nuts

www.espn.com

CSC approves $7.5M worth of reworked NIL deals for 18 Nebraska players

The College Sports Commission has approved $7.5 million in restructured name, image and likeness opportunities spread among 18 Nebraska football players after those deals initially were rejected in a decision upheld by an arbitrator two months ago.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
cookies said:
Spongebob Wtf GIF


Disappointed Basketball GIF by YES Network


Frustrated Buzz Lightyear GIF
Click to expand...
I used to come home from the Hill, jump in the shower, pour diesel fuel, light it on fire, and scrub myself with steel wool each night.
 
ShadowSpring said:
I tend to think courts will strike it down. it's not too hard to find a hardline libertarian judge
Click to expand...
Outside of amateur legal reading purview, but I believe what cane mutiny said about constitutional grounds & so forth applies.

We do not want to depend upon that. Would take long time and the ncaa has terraformed the bill around the house settlement. In some respects challenging it would have to go through Claudia Wilkins’ court and even tho she decided the original settlement, the bill would not lend itself to becoming null and void any time soon
 
The 1 transfer limit would seem to hurt Indiana, Texas Tech, and LSU. Teams that rely mostly on the portal will find there's less available players.
 
Back
Top