Search results

Intramurals are great

If the contract consideration is: playing for the school in exchange for revenue isn’t that pay for play, and an employer/employee relationship, by any other interpretation? An employment contract we’re all familiar with. Compensation based on market value. How is this different? You said...

According to the official Wisconsin tweet in post 214, paragraph 2, it is. Maybe the PR person misspoke.

Nice. Never said I was accurate, and the truth is this is uncharted territory that nobody seems to have answers for. The mafia boss lawyer up approach by the Big Ten and Wisconsin towards Lucas is interesting. The NIL rev-share contracts, beyond being different from anything we’ve seen before...

Rip Van Winkles at Wisconsin. And, another antitrust violation. Add to the list.

Doesn’t this open a whole new can of worms? Edit: based on tweet above Wisconsin said they signed the NIL deal with the player, yet the House settlement called for a third party clearinghouse. I don’t claim to understand what they’re thinking, or what’s going on.

They haven’t been left out. The schools have given the athletes every opportunity to market themselves, promoted their sports to a reasonable extent. Every single women’s sport at the U loses money. Not even remotely close to breaking even. The old opportunity equaling outcomes debate gets...

Bold! 1.Why would a player sign a multi-year binding contract for as low as ~ 30K (pending Title IX litigation) in annual revenue sharing, though? 2.Why are schools entering contracts promising money not yet available, and perhaps destined for the tennis team instead. Unlike the player’s...

The Big Ten apparently has revenue sharing contracts now that marry that player to the school. Except they are null and void pending House money. And the whole employee/employer legal test thing. Interesting strategy, let’s see if it works out for them...

Someone would have to be willing to give up and/or pay any early termination penalties but I’d guess some team will need some player at some point.

Annd the circle is complete, back to under the table cash transfers.

How would the NIL contract, even if stupidly agreed to by the player, allow Wisconsin to prevent a transfer. They don’t seem like they can be related? Or, are universities employing players now?

Wow. If Wisconsin is preventing a player from completing a clean entry (within 48 hrs) and transfer at the bequest of a butthurt donor (that doesn’t want to pursue normal legal action to enforce any NIL contract) this is doubly bad. This is before any lawsuits arrive challenging the legality...

^ This story doesn’t make sense.

The bottom line is there are interested parties, many of them JDs, that are twisting Title IX to not only include any tv publicity rights revenue share but ALL NIL revenue due to collective and athlete association with the schools, from which the schools indirectly benefit. I suppose, from a...

The NFL is a monopoly (collude in exceptional ways in a marketplace) and a monopsony (controls who is employed or contracted) that has barred public ownership of franchises. To protect ownership interests and leverage they colluded to ban public ownership of teams. So, the city of Oakland for...

Sports betting effect ? The product is actually pretty crap compared to days gone by, or CFB. In terms of percentage of media viewers not absolute numbers I believe the percentage share is down from the heyday 70s/80s/90s. My 2 cent opinion. As far as allowing public ownership of entities...

House settlement lead plaintiff hired gun/hopeful soon-to-be billionaire Kessler weighs in, curiously states antitrust claims have been resolved 🤔 Not too late to blow this thing up, folks. Blank sheet. Blue sky. I may be the only one that finds this hilarious, but c’mon. Chaos...

The legislation is interpreted by politically appointed bureaucrats. If challenged in court the legislation/rule is interpreted via oftentimes tortuous logic by attorneys/judges, to fit their preconceived bias and outlook. There is zero chance this new rule interpretation will survive the...

Going back to 2011 the threats of antitrust lawsuits brought the owners to the table. The players have given up way, way more than they ever should have. So have fans. Why NFL fans and their congresspeople allow the ownership model to continue is one of life’s great mysteries...