[BostonCard]

The actual USSC ruling was that the NCAA could not prohibit member schools from providing education-related benefits. It did not make any mention of NIL; however, it also refused to take up a 9th circuit ruling giving Ed O’Bannon a right to his NIL.

While the Supreme Cpurt ruling set the NCAA up for being slapped down if it tried to regulate NIL deals, it did not prohibit the NCAA from placing some restrictions, so far as I know. It is entirely possible that if the NCAA put some limits on how NIL money worked (for example, placing the money in a fund), I’m not sure that the Supreme Court would automatically rule that the NCAA was in violation of anti-trust laws.

We are in a bit of a Wild West time right now as everyone tries to figure out how things will settle out. I could see it being allowable for the NCAA to place some limits (eg, you can’t be offered an NIL offer as an inducement to enroll in a particular school).

BC

[BostonCard]

The actual USSC ruling was that the NCAA could not prohibit member schools from providing education-related benefits. It did not make any mention of NIL; however, it also refused to take up a 9th circuit ruling giving Ed O’Bannon a right to his NIL.

While the Supreme Cpurt ruling set the NCAA up for being slapped down if it tried to regulate NIL deals, it did not prohibit the NCAA from placing some restrictions, so far as I know. It is entirely possible that if the NCAA put some limits on how NIL money worked (for example, placing the money in a fund), I’m not sure that the Supreme Court would automatically rule that the NCAA was in violation of anti-trust laws.

We are in a bit of a Wild West time right now as everyone tries to figure out how things will settle out. I could see it being allowable for the NCAA to place some limits (eg, you can’t be offered an NIL offer as an inducement to enroll in a particular school).

BC