Well considering they’re talking deals falling outside of that market value could be treated as a violation is kind of backwards no? Kind of like saying you can go to jail for violating a law, but the elements of that law are never established.
I'm just going to address this first point.
WITHOUT CAPPING how much can be earned in NIL, you still can create a system that attempts to prevent abuse. Thus, if SOMEONE (let's say a guy who looks like Gene Simmons from KISS and who might be a Florida alum and who formerly owned an auto company) wants to pay a kid $14M, you can examine whether that $14M is a legitimate expense, or if it is really a disguise for something else.
Put another way, if you were selling your used car for $5,000, and your grandfather purchased that car for $5M, the IRS would probably say "yeah, that's just a disguised gift, you still need to file a gift tax return for the other $4,995,000 of the transfer".
Again, the issue is not to say that a kid couldn't EARN $14M. But unless that recruit is Livvy Dunne, or he spends 28 hours a day doing NIL-related activities, the payment of $14M is far beyond the market valuation, and it is quite obviously intended to pay one player far more than the player is entitled under the parameters of the House settlement.
So if you want to put it another way, it will soon be legal for schools to VALIDLY pay student-athletes for legitimate ways in which the student-athletes provide value by way of playing a sport. TV rights, merchandise royalties, video-game fees, etc., all of the things that arise from the athletic endeavor can now be compensated by the universities. HOWEVER, you can't overwhelm that by giving a guy $14M for 4 autograph signings on top of the House-settlement.
There is a difference between "capping income" and determining fair (and NOT SHAM) payments for the services rendered. If Carson Beck ends up doing 20 different NIL deals that pay him $10M total, that's legit, assuming they are all close to "market value". But someone can't pay Carson Beck $10M for a sham NIL deal that requires him to do next to nothing, and is a clear disguise for trying to pay-for-play.
I realize that some will challenge this analysis. They will try to come up with (what they think are) brilliant loopholes. But the reality is that corporate business practices and IRS examinations frequently question the substance of certain types of payments. You probably can't pay your babysitter $1M and then try to deduct it as "childcare expenses", without generating a serious examination of one's finances and tax returns.
