In an important case for NIL enforcement, an arbitrator upheld a CSC decision denying 18 Nebraska players' deals worth millions of dollars.

[BleedGopher]

Go Gophers!!

 

[GopherTheJugular]

It looks like the players are submitting new deals with revised language.

 

[MNVCGUY]

It looks like the players are submitting new deals with revised language.

I guess it is good to hear that they are trying to enforce something but yeah, I'm sure the agents will just figure out a loop hole or way to reword things to get around whatever roadblocks anyone tries to put in place.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

I guess it is good to hear that they are trying to enforce something

I don't think the timing is fair to the players though. I'd assume these athletes had other schools interested in them but now all rosters are full, so without the ability to reword the contract they'd out a season's worth of earnings.

This agency or whatever should have like a 24 hour window to object to an NIL deal or something; they shouldn't be able to "cancel" it after you're on the team, living there, unable to move, etc.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Lol. Wait until the real courts say the CSC can't do that.

It doesn't matter what an arbitrator thinks.

 

[MNVCGUY]

I don't think the timing is fair to the players though. I'd assume these athletes had other schools interested in them but now all rosters are full, so without the ability to reword the contract they'd out a season's worth of earnings.

This agency or whatever should have like a 24 hour window to object to an NIL deal or something; they shouldn't be able to "cancel" it after you're on the team, living there, unable to move, etc.

I don't think that would be possible given the number of deals and the amount of research needed to determine if they are legit or not.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

I don't think that would be possible given the number of deals and the amount of research needed to determine if they are legit or not.

True, but that's a consequence they'd have to live with. It's better than screwing up some athlete's plans like this, especially when it's just random who they start with. For all we know, they could be halfway into the season and then start complaining about our NIL deals, while not getting to the SEC until after the season, for example.

 

[MNVCGUY]

True, but that's a consequence they'd have to live with. It's better than screwing up some athlete's plans like this, especially when it's just random who they start with. For all we know, they could be halfway into the season and then start complaining about our NIL deals, while not getting to the SEC until after the season, for example.

I don't necessarily disagree that there is a sense of urgency to get deals reviewed and decisions made I just think the entire issue is way too complex for that to feasible. You would need a massive group of people on the enforcement side to make that happen and that presents a whole new level of challenges.

Whole thing is a mess.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The middleman Playfly did not adequately justify why the contracts were worth ____. Ok, they’ll come back with some made up bull**** and I suppose that’ll pass muster.

Guys, guy, guys. Everyone knows this is pay for play. You present this to an impartial jury and you will lose 100% of the time.

This is insanity.

One of the CSC's main functions is to evaluate deals between athletes and any associated entity of their school to decide if they are legitimate endorsement opportunities. In the first case testing that power, an arbitrator ruled that the new enforcement group had appropriately applied the rules and that the Nebraska contracts were "warehousing" deals -- a prohibited type of payment in which a company purchases the rights to use the player's likeness in the future but doesn't provide specific information about how it intends to use those rights.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

The middleman Playfly did not adequately justify why the contracts were worth ____. Ok, they’ll come back with some made up bull**** and I suppose that’ll pass muster.

Guys, guy, guys. Everyone knows this is pay for play. You present this to an impartial jury and you will lose 100% of the time.

Honest question for you. Since they will be changing the language of the contract to make it in line with what's required for NIL contracts, if you were on the jury, how would you justify voiding one NIL deal and not another if you're ignoring the language in the contract?

(I mentioned "ignoring the language in the contract" because if you read it word for word, it's valid, that's the whole point of them changing it.)

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Honest question for you. Since they will be changing the language of the contract to make it in line with what's required for NIL contracts, if you were on the jury, how would you justify voiding one NIL deal and not another if you're ignoring the language in the contract?

(I mentioned "ignoring the language in the contract" because if you read it word for word, it's valid, that's the whole point of them changing it.)

It has to do with the concepts of: associated entities doing deals at the behest of schools, NIL compensation as a “valid business purpose”, and “warehousing”. Tortured language and logic which I believe I saw is already under attack from Kessler and Co; to differentiate Playfly from collectives…and to help avoid the deal and CSC from blowing up. I don’t claim to fully understand the moving parts as Kessler wrote the original agreement… but I’m all ears. As far as to letter of the contract it depends on the what the meaning of is is, as always.

We can choose, as jurors and commentators, to see what is actually happening and what this non-organic NIL market with “laundered” compensation deals actually is. CSC, the schools, the conferences, the NCAA, Kessler and Co can nod along with this charade but I think the general consensus is those entities won’t want to cause so much trouble with these deals that it would attract parties not subject to the agreement. We’ll see.