[Goose]

The Nebraska state law says that compensation must be tied to "services actually performed".  So the argument will be exactly what the arbitration found which is that it wasn't for services actually performed.

 
Kind of. Unfortunately the text of the arbitration decision itself is apparently private and will not be made available to the public. It appears that there are two issues involved. The most important one, according to Google AI is as follows:

The CSC (the NCAA's NIL oversight body) rejected the over-the-cap contracts, classifying multimedia rights (MMR) partners like Playfly as "associated entities" similar to collectives, which are banned from directly facilitating NIL deals.

 
So, it appears the question of whether the contracts were "too rich" is somewhat moot. The contracting party Playfly is banned from such actions.
 
The Athletic has a few other things to say: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7271578...l-share-ta

The CSC announced Monday that the arbitrator affirmed its interpretation of PlayFly as an associated entity, and that the deals did not satisfy a “Valid Business Purpose.”
“Playfly appears to be guaranteeing certain payments to each student-athlete in exchange for performance of as-yet unspecified services that it hopes to sell in the future to some as-yet unidentified sponsor on an as-yet unidentified date, in promotion of an unidentified good or service for sale to the general public,” arbitrator Andrew M. Strongin wrote.
“… In effect, Playfly functions as a pass-through for University payments to its student-athletes in a way that was designed to bypass the (revenue-sharing) cap.”

 
The actual use of the player's NIL and the compensation for such use can't actually be argued until such use is defined. Something undefined is by its nature inherently not "services actually performed".

And even if Nebraska state law says you can't punish the athlete, why can't the NCAA simply punish the school.  Ban from post season participation for example....

 
Probably because there is no provision to do that in the House settlement. The NCAA can't make things up on the fly anymore, they will get sued if they do. I am guessing that nobody really considered how the arbitration rulings would be enforced.

[Goose]

The Nebraska state law says that compensation must be tied to "services actually performed".  So the argument will be exactly what the arbitration found which is that it wasn't for services actually performed.

 
Kind of. Unfortunately the text of the arbitration decision itself is apparently private and will not be made available to the public. It appears that there are two issues involved. The most important one, according to Google AI is as follows:

The CSC (the NCAA's NIL oversight body) rejected the over-the-cap contracts, classifying multimedia rights (MMR) partners like Playfly as "associated entities" similar to collectives, which are banned from directly facilitating NIL deals.

 
So, it appears the question of whether the contracts were "too rich" is somewhat moot. The contracting party Playfly is banned from such actions.
 
The Athletic has a few other things to say: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7271578...l-share-ta

The CSC announced Monday that the arbitrator affirmed its interpretation of PlayFly as an associated entity, and that the deals did not satisfy a “Valid Business Purpose.”
“Playfly appears to be guaranteeing certain payments to each student-athlete in exchange for performance of as-yet unspecified services that it hopes to sell in the future to some as-yet unidentified sponsor on an as-yet unidentified date, in promotion of an unidentified good or service for sale to the general public,” arbitrator Andrew M. Strongin wrote.
“… In effect, Playfly functions as a pass-through for University payments to its student-athletes in a way that was designed to bypass the (revenue-sharing) cap.”

 
The actual use of the player's NIL and the compensation for such use can't actually be argued until such use is defined. Something undefined is by its nature inherently not "services actually performed".

And even if Nebraska state law says you can't punish the athlete, why can't the NCAA simply punish the school.  Ban from post season participation for example....

 
Probably because there is no provision to do that in the House settlement. The NCAA can't make things up on the fly anymore, they will get sued if they do. I am guessing that nobody really considered how the arbitration rulings would be enforced.