Another NIL mess…

Donate To GopherHole

Panthadad2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This …
 

Word said:
At least if it's on paper you have some proof, no? Verbal anyone could just make anything up.
Click to expand...
Verbal contract will often have some corroborating paper or electronic communication trail. Not a complete, unitary written agreement. But bits and pieces that, in their totality support a completed, provable agreement.
 


This whole thing is a lawyer’s paradise, sorry lawyers, never ending chain of events until there are enough precedents to settle things down a bit. Probably 15 years? ….or forever
 


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...

Bob_Loblaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.

The written texts between the players and coach and booster could be damning. Purely verbal, I guess I’d need to see actual cases where the plaintiffs prevailed.

Can we all agree it is definitely better to eliminate any room for misunderstanding or standard weasel clauses if only purely to avoid a hefty legal bill. The level of butt-covering should be commensurate with risk. If the money in question was 100% of Target’s yearly revenue I’d guess they definitely have their i’s and t’s addressed.

I don’t generally require a written contract before ordering a burger. I might demand a contract when buying a home.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Gotcha.

The written texts between the players and coach and booster could be damning. Purely verbal, I guess I’d need to see actual cases where the plaintiffs prevailed.

Can we all agree it is definitely better to eliminate any room for misunderstanding or standard weasel clauses if only purely to avoid a hefty legal bill. The level of butt-covering should be commensurate with risk. If the money in question was 100% of Target’s yearly revenue I’d guess they definitely have their i’s and t’s addressed.

I don’t generally require a written contract before ordering a burger. I might demand a contract when buying a home.
Click to expand...
Very good analysis of how contracts, and their documentation work in real life. I’ll correct one faux pas in my earlier analysis. There are “written” contracts and “oral” contracts, the latter being spoken but not documented in a written memorandum. All contracts, written and oral, are “verbal “contracts, that is, contracts expressed in words. (There can also be implied contracts in which actions not words help form the basis of the agreement). Bottom line: The coach who promised NIL money is in for a troubling court experience.
 
Last edited:

Wonder what the coach was thinking.

You'd like to think he wasn't flat out lying from the start and thinking he could just claim he never made those promises.
 

USAF said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand you disagreement about calling it NIL. I agree that "revenue sharing" is the term that has been come up for this new money being paid from the school to the players.

That said, for whatever it's worth, my understanding is that the payment itself will be paying the players for use of their NIL. Just as if it had been a payment/deal from a third party (company, DTA, etc.). But a NIL deal directly from the athletic department to the player.


And why? Because (against, to my understanding) schools do not want student-athletes to be employees of the school. Doing it as a NIL deal is a way to get them the money, without them being an employee.


One recent article that I found from a quick Google search seems to back this up: https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-sharing-settlement-lawyers-fees/77056059007/

"
Also as part of the agreement, Division I athletics programs that provide these NIL payments would no longer be subject to longstanding sport-by-sport scholarship limits, but rather to sport-by-sport roster limits. In the first academic year after final approval of the settlement the roster limit in football, for example, would be 105. Many Power Five schools recently have had rosters of more than 125 players, according to data compiled by USA TODAY Sports through open-records requests.
"
 




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...
Still, as Judge Wapner used to say "Get it in writing." He said that almost as much as he said "Can you show me the receipt?"
 


GopherGrit said:
Wonder what the coach was thinking.

You'd like to think he wasn't flat out lying from the start and thinking he could just claim he never made those promises.
Click to expand...

He wasn’t thinking. Alt take is he figured no downside for himself - except bad karma. Probably thinking 80/20 odds he gets away with it or the booster will take the fall and he’ll be in a different city in a few years.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom