[Goose]

Some thoughts on the thread:

4. There is nothing untoward or corrupt about NIL. Not after Alston. Stanford can't stop it legally. They should be helping athletes navigate the landscape as best they can as the law allows.  I realize that may be just staying out of the way while it happens.  I still don't understand how School X can be behind or against NIL.  Making an unnecessary principled stand while getting ACC sand kicked in its face will make me drop all interest in Stanford sports faster than anything else.

IMO you are quite mistaken. The determination that something is "untoward" or "corrupt" is a logical one based on a set of values (morals), not a legal one. Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it is just, moral, or honest. Conversely, something that by itself is neither immoral nor dishonest may be illegal, and arguably it is therefore "immoral" to do it.

FWIW, it is unclear to me that NIL as it is currently practiced is mandated by Alston. I fully support the notion that an student-athlete should be allowed to be compensated for somebody using said students name, image, or likeness for purposes that are customary and reasonable. In the "bad old days" students couldn't be compensated by businesses that used  their images and names for things like video games. Some used car dealer couldn't pay an athlete to advertise for the dealership. Now they can. IMO this is legitimate "work" or exchanging money for value received. However, if such contracts are really just "fronts" for pay-to-play, they are arguably fraudulent. Funneling money to individuals for purposes other than what you claim it to be can get you in legal hot water if you are a business.

The NIL collectives which arguably have no commercial purpose other than paying NIL would by this standard be inherently fraudulent. They are not using the players name, image, or likeness. They are paying him to go to a certain school. IMO Alston was never intended to cover giving money to athletes as a "bribe" to attend a given school. Obviously if you are a business and require the athlete to do a few pro-forma tasks you have an argument it was actually pay for services. Even if the pay was disproportionate to the value received, the case is arguable by the payer. Even if it was a "personnel services" agreement the case is arguable by the payer. However if such payments are made for demonstrably non-business reasons IMO Alston doesn't cover it and was not intended to do so. The NCAA and the schools may not be willing to take this to court, but IMO they should.

[Goose]

Some thoughts on the thread:

4. There is nothing untoward or corrupt about NIL. Not after Alston. Stanford can't stop it legally. They should be helping athletes navigate the landscape as best they can as the law allows.  I realize that may be just staying out of the way while it happens.  I still don't understand how School X can be behind or against NIL.  Making an unnecessary principled stand while getting ACC sand kicked in its face will make me drop all interest in Stanford sports faster than anything else.

IMO you are quite mistaken. The determination that something is "untoward" or "corrupt" is a logical one based on a set of values (morals), not a legal one. Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it is just, moral, or honest. Conversely, something that by itself is neither immoral nor dishonest may be illegal, and arguably it is therefore "immoral" to do it.

FWIW, it is unclear to me that NIL as it is currently practiced is mandated by Alston. I fully support the notion that an student-athlete should be allowed to be compensated for somebody using said students name, image, or likeness for purposes that are customary and reasonable. In the "bad old days" students couldn't be compensated by businesses that used  their images and names for things like video games. Some used car dealer couldn't pay an athlete to advertise for the dealership. Now they can. IMO this is legitimate "work" or exchanging money for value received. However, if such contracts are really just "fronts" for pay-to-play, they are arguably fraudulent. Funneling money to individuals for purposes other than what you claim it to be can get you in legal hot water if you are a business.

The NIL collectives which arguably have no commercial purpose other than paying NIL would by this standard be inherently fraudulent. They are not using the players name, image, or likeness. They are paying him to go to a certain school. IMO Alston was never intended to cover giving money to athletes as a "bribe" to attend a given school. Obviously if you are a business and require the athlete to do a few pro-forma tasks you have an argument it was actually pay for services. Even if the pay was disproportionate to the value received, the case is arguable by the payer. Even if it was a "personnel services" agreement the case is arguable by the payer. However if such payments are made for demonstrably non-business reasons IMO Alston doesn't cover it and was not intended to do so. The NCAA and the schools may not be willing to take this to court, but IMO they should.