[Mudhead]

It seems like these new "fair market value" rules will severely lower the level of NIL money available to athletes.  I doubt there would be justification under the new system for the $1mil paid to a woman softball pitcher.

You may be right.  I havent read the Alston case, only reports of it. It apparently was decided narrowly on educational benefits and didn’t reach pay for play. It was a unanimous case so all 9 justices agreed that NCAA rules preventing payments of educational benefits beyond tuition, room and board violated antitrust laws. At least one Justice ( Kavanaugh) seemed to believe any restriction agreed upon by schools that restricted what was paid to athletes was illegal. Presumably , he would allow pay for play. But that was not before the court so it’s not permitted nor is there any support for prohibiting it in the Alston decision.

There will almost certainly be efforts to do Texas Tech type deals, though probably without even tacit approval by the schools, in the future. If the NCAA, the conferences or the schools try and limit them , they will be challenged with a lawsuit that may well go back to the Supreme Court.  It’s not at all clear to me that the Supreme Court would agree that restricting such NIL deals is ok.  

Sorry for getting into the weeds . Just suggesting that we will not be free from “whatever consenting parties agree to” vs some formulation of fair value type of NIL deals in the future. If your going to try and be competitive, you have to be prepared to compete in a marketplace like the one existing today.

[Mudhead]

It seems like these new "fair market value" rules will severely lower the level of NIL money available to athletes.  I doubt there would be justification under the new system for the $1mil paid to a woman softball pitcher.

You may be right.  I havent read the Alston case, only reports of it. It apparently was decided narrowly on educational benefits and didn’t reach pay for play. It was a unanimous case so all 9 justices agreed that NCAA rules preventing payments of educational benefits beyond tuition, room and board violated antitrust laws. At least one Justice ( Kavanaugh) seemed to believe any restriction agreed upon by schools that restricted what was paid to athletes was illegal. Presumably , he would allow pay for play. But that was not before the court so it’s not permitted nor is there any support for prohibiting it in the Alston decision.

There will almost certainly be efforts to do Texas Tech type deals, though probably without even tacit approval by the schools, in the future. If the NCAA, the conferences or the schools try and limit them , they will be challenged with a lawsuit that may well go back to the Supreme Court.  It’s not at all clear to me that the Supreme Court would agree that restricting such NIL deals is ok.  

Sorry for getting into the weeds . Just suggesting that we will not be free from “whatever consenting parties agree to” vs some formulation of fair value type of NIL deals in the future. If your going to try and be competitive, you have to be prepared to compete in a marketplace like the one existing today.