[Jamesy]

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.

The fair market value test is easy to administer and enforce on the outliers. Sure, they will be able to sniff out the $2M booster owned car dealership marketing deal with the mens basketball player. But there can be lots of smaller deals (say $100K-$200K or more, and it will grow) that can add up to a lot, and who's to say that isn't "fair market value" when social media deals like that are happening all over the place. I wouldn't cling to the House settlement as the answer to the madness. A market has been made and there's lots at stake. History tells us that this water is going to find its own level...

What is the fair market value test (I honestly don't know what it is)? If Canady had multiple collectives bidding for her services, is that not considered fair market value?

[Jamesy]

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.

The fair market value test is easy to administer and enforce on the outliers. Sure, they will be able to sniff out the $2M booster owned car dealership marketing deal with the mens basketball player. But there can be lots of smaller deals (say $100K-$200K or more, and it will grow) that can add up to a lot, and who's to say that isn't "fair market value" when social media deals like that are happening all over the place. I wouldn't cling to the House settlement as the answer to the madness. A market has been made and there's lots at stake. History tells us that this water is going to find its own level...

What is the fair market value test (I honestly don't know what it is)? If Canady had multiple collectives bidding for her services, is that not considered fair market value?