The Miami perspective on the PCSA after Senate Passing

CanesInSight Articles
7 min read

Comments (74)

Dumb question:

What did Leonard + Clippers get in trouble for?

Could that tangentially apply to future NIL-ish stuff??

@TheOriginalCane @Pixelated bukake
Kawhi and his rep (his uncle), wanted more money than allowed under the salary cap. So they basically came to an agreement “under the table” for the Clippers to “introduce” Leonard to companies who would employ Leonard in a marketing manner. This is against the NBA salary cap rules because teams can’t introduce players to companies for this purpose.

But what appears to be the bigger issue is that the Clippers were providing the same companies with contracts with the Clippers in return for the companies paying Leonard as a spokesperson. And Leonard in turn did no actual work for the companies but was nonetheless paid millions of dollars. So it really looks like the Clippers were funneling money to Leonard through these private companies.
 
I’m not a legal expert but in a free market like our country is, earnings cannot be capped. Not without some form of bargaining and unionization. If you want to cap how much can go to a football roster from CFP earnings the other side of the table has to have a say.

What I think a lot of these anti NIL blowhards don’t realize or don’t want to allow, players can market themselves “independently” from the schools. Odds are the schools are orchestrating these deals, but I don’t think that’s an issue legally. Like pick whatever local pro team you want, the star players aren’t calling the local companies and doing these deals just themselves. Justin Jefferson and Dak Prescott probably negotiated their Lowe’s commercials independently, but the commercials of them in their team’s uniforms for the local grocery store or gas station or whatever is being orchestrated by the team. But it’s using that player’s likeness to prop up the team’s brand.

Bama and UGA or whoever can ***** and moan all they want. But if MasTech(or whoever) decides they want to sign Toney to a NIL deal with five teammates for five commercials, no governing body can prevent that. And the minute a salary cap is enacted that’s exactly what will happen with these boosters who own businesses. And as far as my legal novice self is aware, that can’t be stopped.
We still don’t want a CAP
 
I’m not a legal expert but in a free market like our country is, earnings cannot be capped. Not without some form of bargaining and unionization. If you want to cap how much can go to a football roster from CFP earnings the other side of the table has to have a say.

What I think a lot of these anti NIL blowhards don’t realize or don’t want to allow, players can market themselves “independently” from the schools. Odds are the schools are orchestrating these deals, but I don’t think that’s an issue legally. Like pick whatever local pro team you want, the star players aren’t calling the local companies and doing these deals just themselves. Justin Jefferson and Dak Prescott probably negotiated their Lowe’s commercials independently, but the commercials of them in their team’s uniforms for the local grocery store or gas station or whatever is being orchestrated by the team. But it’s using that player’s likeness to prop up the team’s brand.

Bama and UGA or whoever can ***** and moan all they want. But if MasTech(or whoever) decides they want to sign Toney to a NIL deal with five teammates for five commercials, no governing body can prevent that. And the minute a salary cap is enacted that’s exactly what will happen with these boosters who own businesses. And as far as my legal novice self is aware, that can’t be stopped.
This is 1000% correct which is why there will never again be a cap on NIL. It is unconstitutional
I say “again” because the old NC2A system did exactly this. It created a subset of people within America that was prevented from making money from their NIL.
Whenever someone complains about NIL, I always ask them why is it OK for a 16 year old tennis player to make money from a Nike deal, but not a 19 year old college athlete. And we know the answer. It is because the universitires preferred a system wherein the schools and coaches made and kept the millions (soon to be billions) of dollars, and the workers received a scholarship.
 
Our senators got us wiggle room for the B10, our congressional delegation needs to kill the whole conference cap if not the entire bill.
 
This is where I point out that EVERY single Senate Democrat voted against an insider stock trading ban. I truly loathe the political class across the board.
 
If Miami gets into the Big 10, Miami football is dead.

No way on earth we will recruit the players we want by scheduling games in Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan etc in October/November, and we are NOT built like those teams. They are big, lumbering teams that we will beat, but at immense physical cost - fast beats slow, but big only has to catch you once to injure you.

I can sell a family in Louisiana, Georgia or Florida easily on sending their son to the U, and they can see them play several times a year in the SEC. I can’t do that for the B1G…

As much as I hate the SEC, that’s our only option. Period.
lol wut
 
You can tell Mike Ryan is a snowflake the way he talks about politics smh “pro labor but I’m also pro cap”?? … our advantage is the money **** a CAP!!!
Exactly, the second there is a cap, the ole sec and osu’s of the world go back to the bag game to be the deciding factor on recruiting. F that
No cap
Miami can spend what it wants and HAS same w TT ole Miss and every other program that has come up the past 3-4 years due to over the table legal paying of players versus the bs we had in the past!
 
I’m not a legal expert but in a free market like our country is, earnings cannot be capped. Not without some form of bargaining and unionization. If you want to cap how much can go to a football roster from CFP earnings the other side of the table has to have a say.

What I think a lot of these anti NIL blowhards don’t realize or don’t want to allow, players can market themselves “independently” from the schools. Odds are the schools are orchestrating these deals, but I don’t think that’s an issue legally. Like pick whatever local pro team you want, the star players aren’t calling the local companies and doing these deals just themselves. Justin Jefferson and Dak Prescott probably negotiated their Lowe’s commercials independently, but the commercials of them in their team’s uniforms for the local grocery store or gas station or whatever is being orchestrated by the team. But it’s using that player’s likeness to prop up the team’s brand.

Bama and UGA or whoever can ***** and moan all they want. But if MasTech(or whoever) decides they want to sign Toney to a NIL deal with five teammates for five commercials, no governing body can prevent that. And the minute a salary cap is enacted that’s exactly what will happen with these boosters who own businesses. And as far as my legal novice self is aware, that can’t be stopped.
So if NIL can continue as is, that's great for us since we have the resources...
 
I don’t believe there is any legal way to cap NIL. Because in its correct form, NIl has nothing to do with a university. It is a contract between a business and a player. It is just marketing. And this is the position of the US Supreme Court.

Look at it from a pro sports perspective. Player A signs a contract with team B. The length and amount of that contract is impacted by a salary cap (MLB excluded). But the player can be separately compensated by private company C that wants the player to endorse a product.

School operated co-ops will survive so long as they are not shams. Canes Connection pays players but in turn the players have certain obligations to Canes Connection. The problem will be if the player is compensated by a school operated co-op but provides no service in return. Then it would be just salary cap circumvention as the Clippers were doing with Kawhi Leonard.
So then we should be good. If need be, an increase in NIL money could offset any limits on revenue sharing.
 
Passed ... but with revisions. "A Bill" might pass the house but it is highly doubtful that the exact bill that passed the Senate will get through the house without serious modification ... ie ... eliminating the 3 years as independent.
Serious question. Democrats seem to be more worried about the players not the teams. Why would they shoot down the 3 year as independent clause?
 
So then we should be good. If need be, an increase in NIL money could offset any limits on revenue sharing.
Absolutely. Everyone keeps talking about how much schools can spend, but the real advantage for UM and a handful of other schools, especially in cities, is access to companies who have NIL opportunities. Also keep in mind when discussing NIL in a free market society that “value” is almost impossible to gauge.
For example, if MasTech believes Malachi Toney doing a social media post is worth $1 million, who can say that it is not?
The key, IMO, going forward is not how much schools can pay, but rather does a school have well heeled boosters who own companies AND want to support the program. If so, that program has access via NIL to virtually unlimited funds.
 
Absolutely. Everyone keeps talking about how much schools can spend, but the real advantage for UM and a handful of other schools, especially in cities, is access to companies who have NIL opportunities. Also keep in mind when discussing NIL in a free market society that “value” is almost impossible to gauge.
For example, if MasTech believes Malachi Toney doing a social media post is worth $1 million, who can say that it is not?
The key, IMO, going forward is not how much schools can pay, but rather does a school have well heeled boosters who own companies AND want to support the program. If so, that program has access via NIL to virtually unlimited funds.

It's my belief that the NIL Clearinghouse and the PCSA wants to take away these advantages. It's why they are trying to roll NIL payments into shared revenue budgets. That would be limiting lawful NIL payments.
 
It's my belief that the NIL Clearinghouse and the PCSA wants to take away these advantages. It's why they are trying to roll NIL payments into shared revenue budgets. That would be limiting lawful NIL payments.
But is this in the legislation? Correct me but I haven't seen that.
 
I initially supported having some sort of control over transfers and eligibility, etc.

But this law completely butchered conferences and TV media deals. So im out.

The way its being crafted is clear who is in charge (espn, sec, big10), which means enforcement of any rules will never be fair to us.

Their method also leaves two conferences to die, again terrible for the sport. Even the SEC adding an extra conference game and killing more inter conference exposure and insulating their power further js already being felt with the Polls. Just two conferences will be so whack. So yea, canes can survive by going to a big conference (at an unreasonable price), but the rest of acc and big12 teams will die slowly? Just dumb.

So **** it, leave it as the wild wild west I guess.
Amen, this "bill" looks like it was crafted by Commissioners of SEC & Big 10 with ND receiving a favored nation status( nice job by their AD). ESPN pushing hard for control and have Saban performing a lobbyist function for. ESPN and SEC.
SAVE act is a band aid system is broken
 
Back
Top