[BostonCard]

Arbitration finds that Nebraska’s NIL deals were not permissible (not market value).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...036793007/

BC

[BostonCard]

Arbitration finds that Nebraska’s NIL deals were not permissible (not market value).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...036793007/

BC

[Goose]

Arbitration finds that Nebraska’s NIL deals were not permissible (not market value).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...036793007/

BC

The question is, now what? Will the arbitrator's decision be taken to court? I suspect so, no matter what regulations may exist forbidding it. One can hope that this finding would possibly lead to some sanity, but I have my doubts.

[Goose]

Arbitration finds that Nebraska’s NIL deals were not permissible (not market value).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...036793007/

BC

The question is, now what? Will the arbitrator's decision be taken to court? I suspect so, no matter what regulations may exist forbidding it. One can hope that this finding would possibly lead to some sanity, but I have my doubts.

[BostonCard]

From the article:

The arbitrator’s ruling is a “final, binding decision” that does not leave an option to appeal. However, the Nebraska athletes may “submit revised third-party NIL deals that comply with the rules for the CSC’s review.”

BC

[BostonCard]

From the article:

The arbitrator’s ruling is a “final, binding decision” that does not leave an option to appeal. However, the Nebraska athletes may “submit revised third-party NIL deals that comply with the rules for the CSC’s review.”

BC

[Goose]

From the article:

The arbitrator’s ruling is a “final, binding decision” that does not leave an option to appeal. However, the Nebraska athletes may “submit revised third-party NIL deals that comply with the rules for the CSC’s review.”

BC

Most mandated arbitration has some such verbiage attached.  However, in the face of an adverse decision one of the parties will often try to go around the system via a lawsuit. Depending on the particulars, they may or may not be successful. IMO in the case of NIL I think they have at least a chance of success. The argument will be that the NCAA has can't restrain trade by preventing somebody from overpaying. Your services are worth what you can get for them, and third parties don't (or at a minimum shouldn't) have a say in that. It will be interesting to see if such a suit is filed. Unfortunately, I bet it will be, if not by these 18 athletes then later by others.

[Goose]

From the article:

The arbitrator’s ruling is a “final, binding decision” that does not leave an option to appeal. However, the Nebraska athletes may “submit revised third-party NIL deals that comply with the rules for the CSC’s review.”

BC

Most mandated arbitration has some such verbiage attached.  However, in the face of an adverse decision one of the parties will often try to go around the system via a lawsuit. Depending on the particulars, they may or may not be successful. IMO in the case of NIL I think they have at least a chance of success. The argument will be that the NCAA has can't restrain trade by preventing somebody from overpaying. Your services are worth what you can get for them, and third parties don't (or at a minimum shouldn't) have a say in that. It will be interesting to see if such a suit is filed. Unfortunately, I bet it will be, if not by these 18 athletes then later by others.

[BostonCard]

Agree that there is likely a lawsuit.  Since the College Sports Commission and the process for adjudicating NIL deals was part of a court approved settlement (the House settlement), I wonder if a subsequent court will jump in and say that no, actually, the terms of the prior settlement are null and void.  I would think it would have to be a high bar, since if one party can subsequently sue it would be a strong disincentive for sides to reach an agreement.

I’ll be curious as to what the actual lawyers here would say, but my very non-lawyer guess is that the only way someone would have a convincing case is if there is an allegation that the CSC and its mechanism is somehow subverting the House Settlement.

BC

[BostonCard]

Agree that there is likely a lawsuit.  Since the College Sports Commission and the process for adjudicating NIL deals was part of a court approved settlement (the House settlement), I wonder if a subsequent court will jump in and say that no, actually, the terms of the prior settlement are null and void.  I would think it would have to be a high bar, since if one party can subsequently sue it would be a strong disincentive for sides to reach an agreement.

I’ll be curious as to what the actual lawyers here would say, but my very non-lawyer guess is that the only way someone would have a convincing case is if there is an allegation that the CSC and its mechanism is somehow subverting the House Settlement.

BC

[Goose]

Agree that there is likely a lawsuit.  Since the College Sports Commission and the process for adjudicating NIL deals was part of a court approved settlement (the House settlement), I wonder if a subsequent court will jump in and say that no, actually, the terms of the prior settlement are null and void.  I would think it would have to be a high bar, since if one party can subsequently sue it would be a strong disincentive for sides to reach an agreement.

I’ll be curious as to what the actual lawyers here would say, but my very non-lawyer guess is that the only way someone would have a convincing case is if there is an allegation that the CSC and its mechanism is somehow subverting the House Settlement.

BC

The argument would be that the House settlement itself was unconstitutional. It placed a restriction upon two parties entering into a good-faith contract based on criteria that have no place in contractual regulation. It restrains trade that has no demonstrable harm to the public interest. 
 
The belief is that some of these NIL contracts are illegitimate because their actual intention is to funnel money to the athlete to play at a particular school. These contracts are not actually "NIL" contracts ostensibly because the buyer paid too much. Therefore the contract can't mean what it literally says. IMO this concept is legally nonsense. That would mean any contract that some arbitrator declared as "too rich" is ipso-facto somehow "invalid".  Yes, it may well be the intention is not what the contract literally says it is. However, the dollar amount of the contract can't by itself "prove" that is so. If the contract as written is not by itself improper, one can't impute nefarious purpose without real proof. The dollars alone can't do that.

[Goose]

Agree that there is likely a lawsuit.  Since the College Sports Commission and the process for adjudicating NIL deals was part of a court approved settlement (the House settlement), I wonder if a subsequent court will jump in and say that no, actually, the terms of the prior settlement are null and void.  I would think it would have to be a high bar, since if one party can subsequently sue it would be a strong disincentive for sides to reach an agreement.

I’ll be curious as to what the actual lawyers here would say, but my very non-lawyer guess is that the only way someone would have a convincing case is if there is an allegation that the CSC and its mechanism is somehow subverting the House Settlement.

BC

The argument would be that the House settlement itself was unconstitutional. It placed a restriction upon two parties entering into a good-faith contract based on criteria that have no place in contractual regulation. It restrains trade that has no demonstrable harm to the public interest. 
 
The belief is that some of these NIL contracts are illegitimate because their actual intention is to funnel money to the athlete to play at a particular school. These contracts are not actually "NIL" contracts ostensibly because the buyer paid too much. Therefore the contract can't mean what it literally says. IMO this concept is legally nonsense. That would mean any contract that some arbitrator declared as "too rich" is ipso-facto somehow "invalid".  Yes, it may well be the intention is not what the contract literally says it is. However, the dollar amount of the contract can't by itself "prove" that is so. If the contract as written is not by itself improper, one can't impute nefarious purpose without real proof. The dollars alone can't do that.

[StanfordMatt]

Agree that there is likely a lawsuit.  Since the College Sports Commission and the process for adjudicating NIL deals was part of a court approved settlement (the House settlement), I wonder if a subsequent court will jump in and say that no, actually, the terms of the prior settlement are null and void.  I would think it would have to be a high bar, since if one party can subsequently sue it would be a strong disincentive for sides to reach an agreement.

I’ll be curious as to what the actual lawyers here would say, but my very non-lawyer guess is that the only way someone would have a convincing case is if there is an allegation that the CSC and its mechanism is somehow subverting the House Settlement.

BC

The argument would be that the House settlement itself was unconstitutional. It placed a restriction upon two parties entering into a good-faith contract based on criteria that have no place in contractual regulation. It restrains trade that has no demonstrable harm to the public interest. 
 
The belief is that some of these NIL contracts are illegitimate because their actual intention is to funnel money to the athlete to play at a particular school. These contracts are not actually "NIL" contracts ostensibly because the buyer paid too much. Therefore the contract can't mean what it literally says. IMO this concept is legally nonsense. That would mean any contract that some arbitrator declared as "too rich" is ipso-facto somehow "invalid".  Yes, it may well be the intention is not what the contract literally says it is. However, the dollar amount of the contract can't by itself "prove" that is so. If the contract as written is not by itself improper, one can't impute nefarious purpose without real proof. The dollars alone can't do that.

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.

[StanfordMatt]

Agree that there is likely a lawsuit.  Since the College Sports Commission and the process for adjudicating NIL deals was part of a court approved settlement (the House settlement), I wonder if a subsequent court will jump in and say that no, actually, the terms of the prior settlement are null and void.  I would think it would have to be a high bar, since if one party can subsequently sue it would be a strong disincentive for sides to reach an agreement.

I’ll be curious as to what the actual lawyers here would say, but my very non-lawyer guess is that the only way someone would have a convincing case is if there is an allegation that the CSC and its mechanism is somehow subverting the House Settlement.

BC

The argument would be that the House settlement itself was unconstitutional. It placed a restriction upon two parties entering into a good-faith contract based on criteria that have no place in contractual regulation. It restrains trade that has no demonstrable harm to the public interest. 
 
The belief is that some of these NIL contracts are illegitimate because their actual intention is to funnel money to the athlete to play at a particular school. These contracts are not actually "NIL" contracts ostensibly because the buyer paid too much. Therefore the contract can't mean what it literally says. IMO this concept is legally nonsense. That would mean any contract that some arbitrator declared as "too rich" is ipso-facto somehow "invalid".  Yes, it may well be the intention is not what the contract literally says it is. However, the dollar amount of the contract can't by itself "prove" that is so. If the contract as written is not by itself improper, one can't impute nefarious purpose without real proof. The dollars alone can't do that.

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.

[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.

[StanfordMatt]

From the article:

The arbitrator’s ruling is a “final, binding decision” that does not leave an option to appeal. However, the Nebraska athletes may “submit revised third-party NIL deals that comply with the rules for the CSC’s review.”

BC

Most mandated arbitration has some such verbiage attached.  However, in the face of an adverse decision one of the parties will often try to go around the system via a lawsuit. Depending on the particulars, they may or may not be successful. IMO in the case of NIL I think they have at least a chance of success. The argument will be that the NCAA has can't restrain trade by preventing somebody from overpaying. Your services are worth what you can get for them, and third parties don't (or at a minimum shouldn't) have a say in that. It will be interesting to see if such a suit is filed. Unfortunately, I bet it will be, if not by these 18 athletes then later by others.

Nebraska AD Troy Dannen said on local radio yesterday that if the CSC doesn't clear the deals, Nebraska will fight it. The argument will actually not be based on antitrust, but instead based on a Nebraska state law that says athletes can't be penalized for receiving NIL money.

I have a hard time seeing the NCAA win a case in state court against the state's flagship institution based on an interpretation of that state's laws.

So, Nebraska will win and the players will take the field this fall which I'm sure will sit just lovely with their peers in the Big Ten.

[StanfordMatt]

From the article:

The arbitrator’s ruling is a “final, binding decision” that does not leave an option to appeal. However, the Nebraska athletes may “submit revised third-party NIL deals that comply with the rules for the CSC’s review.”

BC

Most mandated arbitration has some such verbiage attached.  However, in the face of an adverse decision one of the parties will often try to go around the system via a lawsuit. Depending on the particulars, they may or may not be successful. IMO in the case of NIL I think they have at least a chance of success. The argument will be that the NCAA has can't restrain trade by preventing somebody from overpaying. Your services are worth what you can get for them, and third parties don't (or at a minimum shouldn't) have a say in that. It will be interesting to see if such a suit is filed. Unfortunately, I bet it will be, if not by these 18 athletes then later by others.

Nebraska AD Troy Dannen said on local radio yesterday that if the CSC doesn't clear the deals, Nebraska will fight it. The argument will actually not be based on antitrust, but instead based on a Nebraska state law that says athletes can't be penalized for receiving NIL money.

I have a hard time seeing the NCAA win a case in state court against the state's flagship institution based on an interpretation of that state's laws.

So, Nebraska will win and the players will take the field this fall which I'm sure will sit just lovely with their peers in the Big Ten.

[BigJohn043]

From the article:

The arbitrator’s ruling is a “final, binding decision” that does not leave an option to appeal. However, the Nebraska athletes may “submit revised third-party NIL deals that comply with the rules for the CSC’s review.”

BC

Most mandated arbitration has some such verbiage attached.  However, in the face of an adverse decision one of the parties will often try to go around the system via a lawsuit. Depending on the particulars, they may or may not be successful. IMO in the case of NIL I think they have at least a chance of success. The argument will be that the NCAA has can't restrain trade by preventing somebody from overpaying. Your services are worth what you can get for them, and third parties don't (or at a minimum shouldn't) have a say in that. It will be interesting to see if such a suit is filed. Unfortunately, I bet it will be, if not by these 18 athletes then later by others.

Nebraska AD Troy Dannen said on local radio yesterday that if the CSC doesn't clear the deals, Nebraska will fight it. The argument will actually not be based on antitrust, but instead based on a Nebraska state law that says athletes can't be penalized for receiving NIL money.

I have a hard time seeing the NCAA win a case in state court against the state's flagship institution based on an interpretation of that state's laws.

So, Nebraska will win and the players will take the field this fall which I'm sure will sit just lovely with their peers in the Big Ten.

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.

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....

[BigJohn043]

From the article:

The arbitrator’s ruling is a “final, binding decision” that does not leave an option to appeal. However, the Nebraska athletes may “submit revised third-party NIL deals that comply with the rules for the CSC’s review.”

BC

Most mandated arbitration has some such verbiage attached.  However, in the face of an adverse decision one of the parties will often try to go around the system via a lawsuit. Depending on the particulars, they may or may not be successful. IMO in the case of NIL I think they have at least a chance of success. The argument will be that the NCAA has can't restrain trade by preventing somebody from overpaying. Your services are worth what you can get for them, and third parties don't (or at a minimum shouldn't) have a say in that. It will be interesting to see if such a suit is filed. Unfortunately, I bet it will be, if not by these 18 athletes then later by others.

Nebraska AD Troy Dannen said on local radio yesterday that if the CSC doesn't clear the deals, Nebraska will fight it. The argument will actually not be based on antitrust, but instead based on a Nebraska state law that says athletes can't be penalized for receiving NIL money.

I have a hard time seeing the NCAA win a case in state court against the state's flagship institution based on an interpretation of that state's laws.

So, Nebraska will win and the players will take the field this fall which I'm sure will sit just lovely with their peers in the Big Ten.

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.

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....

[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.

[StanfordMatt]

I would add that banning a school from participating in the postseason is absolutely punishing the athletes on that team as well.

[StanfordMatt]

I would add that banning a school from participating in the postseason is absolutely punishing the athletes on that team as well.

[chrisk]

The conference could withhold payments from the university until it comes in compliance with a procedure that all members of the conference to. There must be rules in the media rights agreements that the members have to be in good standing to receive payments. How can Nebraska claim its NILs are in compliance when they are so cleared barred by the House settlement? There are other cases where the violation is not so clear-cut. Nebraska does have the option of withdrawing from the Big Ten. The other members would probably be happy with another 6%. I don’t think Nebraska would choose that over becoming compliant.

[chrisk]

The conference could withhold payments from the university until it comes in compliance with a procedure that all members of the conference to. There must be rules in the media rights agreements that the members have to be in good standing to receive payments. How can Nebraska claim its NILs are in compliance when they are so cleared barred by the House settlement? There are other cases where the violation is not so clear-cut. Nebraska does have the option of withdrawing from the Big Ten. The other members would probably be happy with another 6%. I don’t think Nebraska would choose that over becoming compliant.

[StanfordMatt]

The rest of the Big Ten isn't going to exile Nebraska when a lot of them are trying to do the same thing as the Huskers.

The House settlement is broken before it even got off the ground. The only winners were the lawyers. This is all trending towards the powers that be in the Big Ten and SEC breaking off from the rest of the NCAA, making athletes in revenue sports employees and collectively bargaining with them to reach legally enforceable agreements. I don't know how long it'll take to get there, but that's where all of this is inevitably heading.

It's a world that Stanford should not want to have anything to do with. But that's just my $0.02.

[StanfordMatt]

The rest of the Big Ten isn't going to exile Nebraska when a lot of them are trying to do the same thing as the Huskers.

The House settlement is broken before it even got off the ground. The only winners were the lawyers. This is all trending towards the powers that be in the Big Ten and SEC breaking off from the rest of the NCAA, making athletes in revenue sports employees and collectively bargaining with them to reach legally enforceable agreements. I don't know how long it'll take to get there, but that's where all of this is inevitably heading.

It's a world that Stanford should not want to have anything to do with. But that's just my $0.02.

[Goose]

The rest of the Big Ten isn't going to exile Nebraska when a lot of them are trying to do the same thing as the Huskers.

 
Totally agree. It is also not exactly clear that Nebraska would explicitly be in violation of the letter of the Big Ten agreements.

The House settlement is broken before it even got off the ground. The only winners were the lawyers. This is all trending towards the powers that be in the Big Ten and SEC breaking off from the rest of the NCAA, making athletes in revenue sports employees and collectively bargaining with them to reach legally enforceable agreements. I don't know how long it'll take to get there, but that's where all of this is inevitably heading.
 
It's a world that Stanford should not want to have anything to do with. But that's just my $0.02.

I am not as confident as you are about the "inevitability" of any particular outcome. The one you cite is one such possibility. However the model you present has lots of problems to overcome. Many of these problems are political, and the outcome of political issues often depend on unpredictable factors.  In any case the outcome is likely (IMO) to be not to my taste :-). You can add my $0.02 to  the idea it won't be something Stanford should have anything to do with.

[Goose]

The rest of the Big Ten isn't going to exile Nebraska when a lot of them are trying to do the same thing as the Huskers.

 
Totally agree. It is also not exactly clear that Nebraska would explicitly be in violation of the letter of the Big Ten agreements.

The House settlement is broken before it even got off the ground. The only winners were the lawyers. This is all trending towards the powers that be in the Big Ten and SEC breaking off from the rest of the NCAA, making athletes in revenue sports employees and collectively bargaining with them to reach legally enforceable agreements. I don't know how long it'll take to get there, but that's where all of this is inevitably heading.
 
It's a world that Stanford should not want to have anything to do with. But that's just my $0.02.

I am not as confident as you are about the "inevitability" of any particular outcome. The one you cite is one such possibility. However the model you present has lots of problems to overcome. Many of these problems are political, and the outcome of political issues often depend on unpredictable factors.  In any case the outcome is likely (IMO) to be not to my taste :-). You can add my $0.02 to  the idea it won't be something Stanford should have anything to do with.

[BostonCard]

The rest of the Big Ten isn't going to exile Nebraska when a lot of them are trying to do the same thing as the Huskers.

 
Totally agree. It is also not exactly clear that Nebraska would explicitly be in violation of the letter of the Big Ten agreements.

The House settlement is broken before it even got off the ground. The only winners were the lawyers. This is all trending towards the powers that be in the Big Ten and SEC breaking off from the rest of the NCAA, making athletes in revenue sports employees and collectively bargaining with them to reach legally enforceable agreements. I don't know how long it'll take to get there, but that's where all of this is inevitably heading.
 
It's a world that Stanford should not want to have anything to do with. But that's just my $0.02.

I am not as confident as you are about the "inevitability" of any particular outcome. The one you cite is one such possibility. However the model you present has lots of problems to overcome. Many of these problems are political, and the outcome of political issues often depend on unpredictable factors.  In any case the outcome is likely (IMO) to be not to my taste :-). You can add my $0.02 to  the idea it won't be something Stanford should have anything to do with.

One, I agree with Matt that it is the most likely outcome, but agree with you that it is not inevitable.  There are lots of politically connected state universities outside of the BigTen/SEC footprint, and even within the footprint (but left on the outside looking in).  That renders the trajectory of this very unpredictable.  But I still think the most likely outcome is that football becomes a two-league world.

BC

[BostonCard]

The rest of the Big Ten isn't going to exile Nebraska when a lot of them are trying to do the same thing as the Huskers.

 
Totally agree. It is also not exactly clear that Nebraska would explicitly be in violation of the letter of the Big Ten agreements.

The House settlement is broken before it even got off the ground. The only winners were the lawyers. This is all trending towards the powers that be in the Big Ten and SEC breaking off from the rest of the NCAA, making athletes in revenue sports employees and collectively bargaining with them to reach legally enforceable agreements. I don't know how long it'll take to get there, but that's where all of this is inevitably heading.
 
It's a world that Stanford should not want to have anything to do with. But that's just my $0.02.

I am not as confident as you are about the "inevitability" of any particular outcome. The one you cite is one such possibility. However the model you present has lots of problems to overcome. Many of these problems are political, and the outcome of political issues often depend on unpredictable factors.  In any case the outcome is likely (IMO) to be not to my taste :-). You can add my $0.02 to  the idea it won't be something Stanford should have anything to do with.

One, I agree with Matt that it is the most likely outcome, but agree with you that it is not inevitable.  There are lots of politically connected state universities outside of the BigTen/SEC footprint, and even within the footprint (but left on the outside looking in).  That renders the trajectory of this very unpredictable.  But I still think the most likely outcome is that football becomes a two-league world.

BC

[Goose]

One, I agree with Matt that it is the most likely outcome, but agree with you that it is not inevitable.  There are lots of politically connected state universities outside of the BigTen/SEC footprint, and even within the footprint (but left on the outside looking in).  That renders the trajectory of this very unpredictable.  But I still think the most likely outcome is that football becomes a two-league world.

BC

I don't disagree that a two league world is a probable outcome. However, the character of that outcome can vary. First, the players being employees is not necessarily what the powers-that-be want. A CBA does make some kinds of agreements "legal" that would otherwise be anti-trust violations. The powers would like that. OTOH they have to reach an agreement that the players will accept, and many things the powers want I strongly suspect the players will oppose. The players may like yearly free-agency for example.
 
There are also many tensions between this solution and the academic purpose of a University. Would the players still have to be enrolled in the University? If not, doesn't the Athletic Department simply become an independent but state-owned minor league franchise? Is that even legal in every jurisdiction involved? Why would it be tax-exempt? Where would the profits go and where would the liabilities reside?  Who owns the stadium? Is it owned by the University and leased out to the teams involved? Getting every SEC/Big10 school on the same page regarding these issues will not be easy I suspect, and the University administrators probably won't much like the process either. IMO the end state can be a whole lot of different possibilities, many of which are more like the status-quo than the alternative of employees with a CBA working for independent businesses.

[Goose]

One, I agree with Matt that it is the most likely outcome, but agree with you that it is not inevitable.  There are lots of politically connected state universities outside of the BigTen/SEC footprint, and even within the footprint (but left on the outside looking in).  That renders the trajectory of this very unpredictable.  But I still think the most likely outcome is that football becomes a two-league world.

BC

I don't disagree that a two league world is a probable outcome. However, the character of that outcome can vary. First, the players being employees is not necessarily what the powers-that-be want. A CBA does make some kinds of agreements "legal" that would otherwise be anti-trust violations. The powers would like that. OTOH they have to reach an agreement that the players will accept, and many things the powers want I strongly suspect the players will oppose. The players may like yearly free-agency for example.
 
There are also many tensions between this solution and the academic purpose of a University. Would the players still have to be enrolled in the University? If not, doesn't the Athletic Department simply become an independent but state-owned minor league franchise? Is that even legal in every jurisdiction involved? Why would it be tax-exempt? Where would the profits go and where would the liabilities reside?  Who owns the stadium? Is it owned by the University and leased out to the teams involved? Getting every SEC/Big10 school on the same page regarding these issues will not be easy I suspect, and the University administrators probably won't much like the process either. IMO the end state can be a whole lot of different possibilities, many of which are more like the status-quo than the alternative of employees with a CBA working for independent businesses.

[StanfordMatt]

There’s definitely a political element to consider.

For one, I wouldn’t expect any serious movement while a Republican is in the White House and the NLRB leans conservative. This is why the Dartmouth basketball players withdrew their petition to unionize after Trump’s election so as not to set an adverse precedent.

But once a Democrat retakes the White House, the unionization efforts will reignite. They’ll start in a liberal region where they have the best chance at success and they’ll break through just like the Dartmouth basketball players did in Region 1 (Boston). From there, it will spread.

Big Ten programs will probably go first (amongst the Power 2) because there are multiple in blue states. The political powers in Alabama and Mississippi won’t be happy about their labor unionizing, but they’ll come around real quick once they start losing recruiting battles to Michigan, Penn State, etc.

That’s my prediction.

[StanfordMatt]

There’s definitely a political element to consider.

For one, I wouldn’t expect any serious movement while a Republican is in the White House and the NLRB leans conservative. This is why the Dartmouth basketball players withdrew their petition to unionize after Trump’s election so as not to set an adverse precedent.

But once a Democrat retakes the White House, the unionization efforts will reignite. They’ll start in a liberal region where they have the best chance at success and they’ll break through just like the Dartmouth basketball players did in Region 1 (Boston). From there, it will spread.

Big Ten programs will probably go first (amongst the Power 2) because there are multiple in blue states. The political powers in Alabama and Mississippi won’t be happy about their labor unionizing, but they’ll come around real quick once they start losing recruiting battles to Michigan, Penn State, etc.

That’s my prediction.

[StanfordMatt]

More than $100M of NIL pay that schools guaranteed athletes goes uncleared by CSC - 75% from SEC and Big Ten.

[StanfordMatt]

More than $100M of NIL pay that schools guaranteed athletes goes uncleared by CSC - 75% from SEC and Big Ten.