Another NIL mess…

Donate To GopherHole

Are "promises" a legal thing, that you can sue someone over?

I have absolutely no idea.
 



Interesting! I wonder how they will prove it.

That is such an obvious thing, that they probably wouldn't go as far as filing a suit if they didn't have substantial evidence/proof. I could probably just further read the article! :)

EDIT: lol, yep! From the article

"Evidence of the NIL promises reportedly includes multiple text message exchanges, both player-to-player and player-to-Hamilton, as well as with the executive of one of Florida State's NIL collective - Will Cowen.

Back in February, as frustrations reached a boiling point in-season, players staged a walk out during practice before a game against Duke with the intention to also boycott the game. Hamilton held a team meeting and shared that the money would hit the player's accounts the next week, and the team took the court against the Blue Devils, a game that they ultimately lost by 9 points."
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
The fact that the schools / coaches are in a position to promise or imply things ... but have no control over delivery is going to create problems.

Makes no sense / going to be a constant problem.
Click to expand...
Yep, the current rules force everyone to pretend.

They are doing it this way because "reality" would force them to tackle the Title IX conundrum, that is an absolute powder keg.
 

GopherGrit said:
Interesting! I wonder how they will prove it.

That is such an obvious thing, that they probably wouldn't go as far as filing a suit if they didn't have substantial evidence/proof. I could probably just further read the article! :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, we'll see how much evidence they have. If they have any evidence, I'll guess FSU's NIL program "finds" money to pay them off. It's a can of worms.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Yeah, we'll see how much evidence they have. If they have any evidence, I'll guess FSU's NIL program "finds" money to pay them off. It's a can of worms.
Click to expand...
I edited my post, indeed they have some seemingly pretty solid evidence.

Coach said his "business partners" were going to pay them $250k each.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Yep, the current rules force everyone to pretend.

They are doing it this way because "reality" would force them to tackle the Title IX conundrum, that is an absolute powder keg.
Click to expand...
I don't want to derail this thread (happy to move to another), but was listening to Pair and a Spare and they brought up that the $20M per year that the school is now allowed to pay athletes directly for their NIL, about 70% of that is slated to go to football.

Would seem possibly like Title IX implications there. (They did not discuss that in the episode.)
 




GopherEnEspaña said:
I'm not a lawyer but that's stupid
Click to expand...
A large percentage of work is done in the US via informal contracts.

Almost everyone who has an MSA with a client, they are rarely rewriting a specific contract for each "project" - the MSA is often used to make "contracting" quicker. You just call/text/email your widget guy and say "hey, can we get 3-4 more shipments of widgets?"

This doesn't seem all that different from that scenario. We don't want to live in a world where every business interaction needs to be given its own specific-contract. No one would want that except the legal community.

If the players are telling the truth, and I have no idea if they are or not, then it's contracting 101. The coach says he'll pay them for their services.
 

GopherGrit said:
I don't want to derail this thread (happy to move to another), but was listening to Pair and a Spare and they brought up that the $20M per year that the school is now allowed to pay athletes directly for their NIL, about 70% of that is slated to go to football.

Would seem possibly like Title IX implications there. (They did not discuss that in the episode.)
Click to expand...

Sounds like the Big Ten schools are selecting five of their sports to pay. FB, MBB, WBB, VB and then one additional one....Hockey here, Assuming wrestling for Iowa. Penn State would have to decide between Hockey and Wrestling. Wonder if those other student athletes will make noise.
 

GopherGrit said:
I don't want to derail this thread (happy to move to another), but was listening to Pair and a Spare and they brought up that the $20M per year that the school is now allowed to pay athletes directly for their NIL, about 70% of that is slated to go to football.

Would seem possibly like Title IX implications there. (They did not discuss that in the episode.)
Click to expand...
Well I would think (as I said previously I am no lawyer) if the money comes from a designated fund for that specific sport it would not run afoul of Title IX. (Like scholarship funds for football, hockey, basketball...etc) Money from the generalized budget would be different.

I'm not explaining it well but like when Najarian had a fund for football...I would think the schools could classify it similar.
 




MilosRevenge said:
Sounds like the Big Ten schools are selecting five of their sports to pay. FB, MBB, WBB, VB and then one additional one....Hockey here, Assuming wrestling for Iowa. Penn State would have to decide between Hockey and Wrestling. Wonder if those other student athletes will make noise.
Click to expand...
It'll be interesting to see if the dollar amounts have to be equal to not run afoul of Title IX. If so, football might be the ones making noise when they see the libero on their volleyball team driving around in a Bentley while the OL are getting paid like $20K.
 

People should know at this point to get it in writing. Promises mean nothing legally if you don't have it in writing.
 

Dave H said:
Well I would think (as I said previously I am no lawyer) if the money comes from a designated fund for that specific sport it would not run afoul of Title IX. (Like scholarship funds for football, hockey, basketball...etc) Money from the generalized budget would be different.

I'm not explaining it well but like when Najarian had a fund for football...I would think the schools could classify it similar.
Click to expand...

with Title IX, I think the issue is "revenue sharing." the argument is that most of the TV revenue is generated by Football and Men's basketball, with a little from Women's basketball.

those are the sports that generate the revenue, therefore those are the sports that should share in the revenue.

with all due respect to LaCrosse or Rowing, they generate no revenue, so why should they share in the revenue that is generated by other sports? (at least, that is the argument).

Title IX is more about opportunity. Women have the opportunity to play college sports and get scholarships - but that does not mean they have a right to revenue sharing.

again, the new revenue-sharing was created as part of the House anti-trust case - and that case is still waiting a final disposition from the Judge, so the "final" rules have yet to be confirmed.
 

GopherGrit said:
I don't want to derail this thread (happy to move to another), but was listening to Pair and a Spare and they brought up that the $20M per year that the school is now allowed to pay athletes directly for their NIL, about 70% of that is slated to go to football.

Would seem possibly like Title IX implications there. (They did not discuss that in the episode.)
Click to expand...
The $20m in revenue sharing is not "NIL."

Completely different. Revenue sharing will come from Athletic Department revenues. If it happens.

NIL is third party money. Unrelated.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Yes. This actually sounds like a verbal contract "if you do this (play here), i'll arrange payments". Either way, it can be legally enforceable.
Click to expand...
How do you prove a verbal agreement? Can't one side just deny it?
 

short ornery norwegian said:
with Title IX, I think the issue is "revenue sharing." the argument is that most of the TV revenue is generated by Football and Men's basketball, with a little from Women's basketball.

those are the sports that generate the revenue, therefore those are the sports that should share in the revenue.

with all due respect to LaCrosse or Rowing, they generate no revenue, so why should they share in the revenue that is generated by other sports? (at least, that is the argument).

Title IX is more about opportunity. Women have the opportunity to play college sports and get scholarships - but that does not mean they have a right to revenue sharing.

again, the new revenue-sharing was created as part of the House anti-trust case - and that case is still waiting a final disposition from the Judge, so the "final" rules have yet to be confirmed.
Click to expand...
While that is true, it isn't what they asked...
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
A large percentage of work is done in the US via informal contracts.

Almost everyone who has an MSA with a client, they are rarely rewriting a specific contract for each "project" - the MSA is often used to make "contracting" quicker. You just call/text/email your widget guy and say "hey, can we get 3-4 more shipments of widgets?"

This doesn't seem all that different from that scenario. We don't want to live in a world where every business interaction needs to be given its own specific-contract. No one would want that except the legal community.

If the players are telling the truth, and I have no idea if they are or not, then it's contracting 101. The coach says he'll pay them for their services.
Click to expand...

You’ve gotta be kidding, man? Contracts, simple amendments when necessary protect both parties.

If you’re not sure who the sucker is…it’s you. Get EVERYTHING you actually expect in writing.
 

Title IX may not be a thing in the medium term future which would solve and cause a lot of problems
 

Word said:
How do you prove a verbal agreement? Can't one side just deny it?
Click to expand...
Sure there are lots of "he said, she said" situations where the parties don't concur on what was agreed. Sometimes this is a case of one side lying, but often there are honest disagreements over the terms of the contract or whether there was a contract at all. When that happens, the judge or jury have to look to the other evidence and evaluate the credibility of the parties to determine whether there was a contract and, if so, what terms were agreed to.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Yes. This actually sounds like a verbal contract "if you do this (play here), i'll arrange payments". Either way, it can be legally enforceable.
Click to expand...
Exactly: The verbal contract consists of an "offer" (play for me at FSU and I promise you $250K in NIL money) that was "accepted" (the players stayed at or transferred to FSU to play). Furthermore, the players fulfilled their end of the contract by playing ("consideration" to support the contract). Moreover, fact that the players affirmatively changed their positions in reliance on the coach's offer, adds further consideration to the player's side, and might, in a court proceeding, prevent the coach from denying the existence of the verbal contract (doctrine of "estoppel"). I'd love to see how this lawsuit works out ...
 

MilosRevenge said:
Sounds like the Big Ten schools are selecting five of their sports to pay. FB, MBB, WBB, VB and then one additional one....Hockey here, Assuming wrestling for Iowa. Penn State would have to decide between Hockey and Wrestling. Wonder if those other student athletes will make noise.
Click to expand...
I would like to see it be 2 extra; one each for women and men, and have it be for women’s hockey.
 

Gophergrandpa said:
Exactly: The verbal contract consists of an "offer" (play for me at FSU and I promise you $250K in NIL money) that was "accepted" (the players stayed at or transferred to FSU to play). Furthermore, the players fulfilled their end of the contract by playing ("consideration" to support the contract). Moreover, fact that the players affirmatively changed their positions in reliance on the coach's offer, adds further consideration to the player's side, and might, in a court proceeding, prevent the coach from denying the existence of the verbal contract (doctrine of "estoppel"). I'd love to see how this lawsuit works out ...
Click to expand...
Seems like a lot of potential for abuse of this by both sides.
 

On the bright side, in this current NIL mess, it can be a competitive advantage to offer a straight forward, transparent, well run, and decently funded NIL program. It sounds like DTA fits that mold. Gophs might not land the dumbass knuckleheads looking only for quick big bag, but that's OK.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
You’ve gotta be kidding, man? Contracts, simple amendments when necessary protect both parties.

If you’re not sure who the sucker is…it’s you. Get EVERYTHING you actually expect in writing.
Click to expand...
He did get it in writing, the text messages.

Of course contracts with amendments protect all parties, but it's just not done even close to 100% of the time, even with the most sophisticated companies.

If you're a company like Target, you have general supply agreements (that establish Ts & Cs and pricing), but they are constantly doing business and making orders via email. Should they have a a signed agreement for every order? Probably. Is it feasible? Probably not. The truth is, even if the other side welches on their bet, you have the opportunity to sue them (like these kids are here) or simply cutting them off from future work. It's a cost/benefit analysis where you weigh the cost of legal fees.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom