[chrisk]

Yes and no.

From Clemson's FAQ:

 The settlement also allows for third-party NIL payments to student-athletes. Those third-party payments must be fair market value payments for a legitimate business purpose and not used for pay-for-play (e.g., merely an inducement to enroll or remain at a particular institution.) Legitimate third-party NIL payments will not count towards the revenue share cap and will be reviewed by an independent clearing house to determine compliance with the fair market value rules. This will be a fundamental shift in the current NIL landscape where there is currently no legitimate purpose / fair market value requirement. These rules are in the process of being written.  

https://clemsontigers.com/faq-nil-house-revenue/

So...it's all being made up as we go along. But I don't think Canady's deal would meet "fair market value" scrutiny, if that ends up being a standard that's actually enforced/enforceable.

I would think most big-time schools will initially be cautious of breaching the fair-value rule since it will reduce the money available for the other athletes. If Deloitte establishes a transparent and credible process for running the NIL platform and arbitrating disuputes, they could keep the process under control for a few years. Ultimately, they are going to need Congressional action. In this new anti-regulation era, does that mean the NCAA will be given more or less latitude of action?

[chrisk]

Yes and no.

From Clemson's FAQ:

 The settlement also allows for third-party NIL payments to student-athletes. Those third-party payments must be fair market value payments for a legitimate business purpose and not used for pay-for-play (e.g., merely an inducement to enroll or remain at a particular institution.) Legitimate third-party NIL payments will not count towards the revenue share cap and will be reviewed by an independent clearing house to determine compliance with the fair market value rules. This will be a fundamental shift in the current NIL landscape where there is currently no legitimate purpose / fair market value requirement. These rules are in the process of being written.  

https://clemsontigers.com/faq-nil-house-revenue/

So...it's all being made up as we go along. But I don't think Canady's deal would meet "fair market value" scrutiny, if that ends up being a standard that's actually enforced/enforceable.

I would think most big-time schools will initially be cautious of breaching the fair-value rule since it will reduce the money available for the other athletes. If Deloitte establishes a transparent and credible process for running the NIL platform and arbitrating disuputes, they could keep the process under control for a few years. Ultimately, they are going to need Congressional action. In this new anti-regulation era, does that mean the NCAA will be given more or less latitude of action?