Started By
Message
re: The NIL Ruling has nothing to do with the portal. The SCOTUS did not rule on the Portal.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 8:03 pm to 3down10
Posted on 12/7/22 at 8:03 pm to 3down10
quote:Not trying to be a jerk here but this is flat out wrong. In many places they are unenforceable period. In most places you have to have some sort of protectable/legitimate interest which cannot be "I don't want to compete against this person".
Non-competes are not enforceable if they do not have a reasonable reason. AKA, if the employment or whatever of that employee directly conflicts with them or not.
For example, I have signed such an agreement in the past. I am a programmer, I program things. This was part of a specific industry, and my NCC was specific to that industry.
So if I had went and found employment in the same industry, aka one of their competitors, they could enforce that clause.
However, if they tried to make that more broad and say that I couldn't be a programmer at any place, then it wouldn't be enforceable.
In this, if a player transfers, it is directly to a competitor, unless it's to the FCS or another league. In which there has never been a limit on playing after transferring.
Usually the interests are - Trade secrets, clients, confidential information, etc... the non-compete only lasts as long as those are reasonably at risk and there has to be compensation for it - often continued employment is sufficient but not always. In a college football context it would likely be enforceable to the end of the season or something along those lines.
This post was edited on 12/7/22 at 8:04 pm
2
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:30 pm to ALhunter
quote:
Not trying to be a jerk here but this is flat out wrong. In many places they are unenforceable period. In most places you have to have some sort of protectable/legitimate interest which cannot be "I don't want to compete against this person".
Usually the interests are - Trade secrets, clients, confidential information, etc... the non-compete only lasts as long as those are reasonably at risk and there has to be compensation for it - often continued employment is sufficient but not always. In a college football context it would likely be enforceable to the end of the season or something along those lines.
Ok fine, anytime there is any kind of legal discussion, we'll just find the state that fits our view point the most, then argue it.
What I signed was total bullshite, didn't happen, because this guy on the internet cited a law in some other state.
And what you are describing sounds more like an NDA to me. Which I also signed at the same time, even though it probably isn't enforceable on some Indian Reservation in Wyoming.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 9:32 am to ALhunter
quote:
Not trying to be a jerk here but this is flat out wrong. In many places they are unenforceable period. In most places you have to have some sort of protectable/legitimate interest which cannot be "I don't want to compete against this person".
Usually the interests are - Trade secrets, clients, confidential information, etc... the non-compete only lasts as long as those are reasonably at risk and there has to be compensation for it - often continued employment is sufficient but not always. In a college football context it would likely be enforceable to the end of the season or something along those lines.
I'm a lawyer and this is generally true. Even when they are allowed, they usually have some geographical or temporal limits, like "can't compete in this limited area" or "can only last 6 months or a year."
These kinds of restraints on trade are not favored by courts anywhere. Doesn't mean they are always void, but that courts are going to take a narrow view, generally.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News