[Goose]

Goose - I agree with what you wrote, but I'm curious to get your view on another topic related to the legitimacy of NIL contracts: the enforceability of buyout provisions. While some schools have gone along with paying buyouts pursuant to NIL deals, others have balked claiming that the buyouts are invalid. Generally speaking, that argument rests on the idea that these contracts are actually employment contracts masquerading as NIL deals and since the athletes aren't receiving employee benefits, the buyouts are void.

While I know not much about NIL buyout clauses, I am foolish enough to display that fact in my answer :-). The "NIL" contract isn't actually with the school directly. It is with the NIL collective (or equivalent) which at least in theory has an arms-length relationship with the school. The exact terms of the contract make a difference. The value of the athletes Name, Image, and Likeness may be tied to factors such as not getting arrested. It may also be tied to the athlete actually remaining at a given school.
 
There is a school of thought that argues the value of a "buyout" can only be tied to the "actual" decline in value of the players NIL and that buyouts in excess of that are unenforceable. The player's Name, Image, and Likeness is still (in theory) available to the NIL collective, even if the player is attending another school. This argument suffers from the same problem the as the NIL being illegitimate in the first place because it was "too rich". The players NIL is worth what the contract says it is and the damage to that caused by the player leaving is also what the contract says it is. The player can't have it both ways. If one clauses value assessment can be questioned, so can the others. If the player was vastly overpaid he should have to pay that back. For certain the NIL is not intended to be an "employment contract", and arguing that it is creates all kinds of problems for the school, for the NIL collective, and the player themselves.  IMO that is why some schools have elected not to enforce those contract provisions. Too many embarrassing questions and a potential legal minefield whose unanticipated results aren't worth the risk. It becomes a "cost of doing business". 
 
The obvious case where enforcing a buyout clearly "makes sense" is when the player signs an NIL deal with his "new" school's NIL collective that is even richer than the old one. In that case, he is clearly in breach of his previous agreement (assuming it is well written). The "new" school may not want to see a legal fight develop and will simply pay the buyout. If not, the "value" of the previous NIL would be evaluated in court in light of the new NIL. If the new NIL is even richer than the old one it definitely supports the legitimacy of the previous buyout. In these cases IMO the "old" NIL collective has every reason to pursue the buyout claim. The fact the athlete now has more money than before and has a new, richer, NIL collective as a client makes success without any litigation much more probable. I expect this to become the norm eventually. It will just become a cost of doing business when bringing a player in from the portal and the players NIL will reflect that cost to whatever extent the parties negotiate.

[Goose]

Goose - I agree with what you wrote, but I'm curious to get your view on another topic related to the legitimacy of NIL contracts: the enforceability of buyout provisions. While some schools have gone along with paying buyouts pursuant to NIL deals, others have balked claiming that the buyouts are invalid. Generally speaking, that argument rests on the idea that these contracts are actually employment contracts masquerading as NIL deals and since the athletes aren't receiving employee benefits, the buyouts are void.

While I know not much about NIL buyout clauses, I am foolish enough to display that fact in my answer :-). The "NIL" contract isn't actually with the school directly. It is with the NIL collective (or equivalent) which at least in theory has an arms-length relationship with the school. The exact terms of the contract make a difference. The value of the athletes Name, Image, and Likeness may be tied to factors such as not getting arrested. It may also be tied to the athlete actually remaining at a given school.
 
There is a school of thought that argues the value of a "buyout" can only be tied to the "actual" decline in value of the players NIL and that buyouts in excess of that are unenforceable. The player's Name, Image, and Likeness is still (in theory) available to the NIL collective, even if the player is attending another school. This argument suffers from the same problem the as the NIL being illegitimate in the first place because it was "too rich". The players NIL is worth what the contract says it is and the damage to that caused by the player leaving is also what the contract says it is. The player can't have it both ways. If one clauses value assessment can be questioned, so can the others. If the player was vastly overpaid he should have to pay that back. For certain the NIL is not intended to be an "employment contract", and arguing that it is creates all kinds of problems for the school, for the NIL collective, and the player themselves.  IMO that is why some schools have elected not to enforce those contract provisions. Too many embarrassing questions and a potential legal minefield whose unanticipated results aren't worth the risk. It becomes a "cost of doing business". 
 
The obvious case where enforcing a buyout clearly "makes sense" is when the player signs an NIL deal with his "new" school's NIL collective that is even richer than the old one. In that case, he is clearly in breach of his previous agreement (assuming it is well written). The "new" school may not want to see a legal fight develop and will simply pay the buyout. If not, the "value" of the previous NIL would be evaluated in court in light of the new NIL. If the new NIL is even richer than the old one it definitely supports the legitimacy of the previous buyout. In these cases IMO the "old" NIL collective has every reason to pursue the buyout claim. The fact the athlete now has more money than before and has a new, richer, NIL collective as a client makes success without any litigation much more probable. I expect this to become the norm eventually. It will just become a cost of doing business when bringing a player in from the portal and the players NIL will reflect that cost to whatever extent the parties negotiate.