Started By
Message
GHSA votes to ban NIL payments to high school athletes.
Posted on 7/19/24 at 8:50 pm
Posted on 7/19/24 at 8:50 pm
Is this legal?
Don't see how this would hold up in court if challenged.
If college and Olympic athletes can earn money off their likeness don't see why a high school athlete can't.
Don't see how this would hold up in court if challenged.
If college and Olympic athletes can earn money off their likeness don't see why a high school athlete can't.
3
Posted on 7/19/24 at 9:00 pm to RD Dawg
Better tell that stud from Grayson to give his money back
Posted on 7/19/24 at 9:08 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
I think he got his before the new rule.
Posted on 7/20/24 at 10:10 am to RD Dawg
Some high school athlete will challenge this in court and win.
Posted on 7/20/24 at 10:15 am to RD Dawg
I support this
Posted on 7/20/24 at 11:00 am to UGADawg1988
Don’t see a problem with it honestly. They can make money off their likeness all they want, just can’t participate in public school sports. I think the GHSA is different than the NCAA telling college kids they can’t make NIL
Otherwise, kids could challenge ANY rule GHSS puts out there. Why not let kids just go play for any HS sports regardless of the school they attend….cause you can have rules
Otherwise, kids could challenge ANY rule GHSS puts out there. Why not let kids just go play for any HS sports regardless of the school they attend….cause you can have rules
This post was edited on 7/20/24 at 11:02 am
Posted on 7/20/24 at 11:16 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
They can make money off their likeness all they want, just can’t participate in public school sports.
Went to HS with a kid who did commercials and modeled and also participated in sports (tennis if I recall) So you wanna ban someone like him?
He's making money off his likeness and don't see anything wrong with it.
Posted on 7/20/24 at 12:09 pm to RD Dawg
Slippery slope…inevitably kids will be contacted by “unaffiliated” 3rd parties at the request of colleges who are recruiting them.
Posted on 7/20/24 at 12:55 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Went to HS with a kid who did commercials and modeled and also participated in sports (tennis if I recall) So you wanna ban someone like him?
No. Just like I don’t want to ban someone making tips as a waiter in HS cause of his likeness….as long as it’s not above the going rate for their work
This is about getting paid specifically for your sport and/or above going rate for your job
This post was edited on 7/20/24 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 7/20/24 at 12:55 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Went to HS with a kid who did commercials and modeled and also participated in sports (tennis if I recall) So you wanna ban someone like him?
He's making money off his likeness and don't see anything wrong with it.
Was the money he made tied directly to his playing tennis, or because he was a good looking kid that could do commercials and model?
In other words, he was not making money because of his tennis. I mean, if he was, then you could argue that NIL was already happening on the high school level. I suspect (Don't know anything about the law you are talking about) that it had more to do with a similar law in Missouri, saying that a college could begin making payments to a high school kid before he is actually enrolled at the college....but that is a guess.
Just looked at your link...and here is the pertinent language:
Going forward, if an athlete is caught earning money using NIL from a club or collective, they could possibly lose their eligibility to play sports at their respective high school.
The only exception to the new amendment is that athletes can publicize their name, image and likeness, but it cannot be associated with the school, its logos, facilities or video footage that relates to it.
So, the kid you referenced could make money apart form a collective or school.
Posted on 7/20/24 at 3:31 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Was the money he made tied directly to his playing tennis, or because he was a good looking kid that could do commercials and model?
It doesn't matter.He was selling his "likeness/image' and like it or not its no different than a athlete selling his likeness.
quote:
The only exception to the new amendment is that athletes can publicize their name, image and likeness
Does publicize mean they can monetize their image/likeness? Kind of vague.
I get that NIL and HS athletes opens up a huge can of worms and not accepting from a "club or collective" makes complete sense but the kid from Grayson got his payment from Adidas I believe and I don't have an issue with the kid and family getting paid for his athletic ability.
Posted on 7/20/24 at 3:45 pm to RD Dawg
The only problem is that several places (Missouri being one of the more vocal) heavily use and push this when recruiting. I think it’s a big reason we lost out on Williams Nwaneri last cycle. It’s a disadvantage in that regard though I agree with the principal of them not being able to be paid in HS
Posted on 7/20/24 at 4:01 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
The only exception to the new amendment is that athletes can publicize their name, image and likeness, but it cannot be associated with the school, its logos, facilities or video footage that relates to it
It sounds like they can still get paid but can’t use their high school stuff in the advertising
Posted on 7/20/24 at 4:01 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
It doesn't matter.He was selling his "likeness/image' and like it or not its no different than a athlete selling his likeness.
Sure it is. It's never been against GHSAA rules for a kid to play sports and to do modeling, even as far as having pictures taken and placed in catalogues of some type.
quote:You have to take the rule in it's entirety.
Does publicize mean they can monetize their image/likeness? Kind of vague.
The only exception to the new amendment is that athletes can publicize their name, image and likeness, but it cannot be associated with the school, its logos, facilities or video footage that relates to it.
They can be in advertisements, (modelling, etc) as long as it is not tied to sports, the school, logos or facilities....basically a kid can't have his picture in his football uniform in front of the Parkview (or other schools facilities) or for that matter the kid can't have his NIL in front of the school or other facilities.
Basically what it's always been. As long as the school or facilities or uniforms etc are used a kid can do whatever he wants to make money. He can't tie his NIL to a school or sport.
Posted on 7/20/24 at 6:20 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Sure it is. It's never been against GHSAA rules for a kid to play sports and to do modeling
Of course not but it COULD be now with the new rule.
I mean you're interpretation is different than mine.
Once again,does publicize mean monetize?
I honestly don't know.
quote:
You have to take the rule in it's entirety
I did and it's still some vague.
quote:
Basically what it's always been
No it isn't. What about the Grayson kid paid by Adidas?
It's certainly tied to his sport but it's not tied to a club or collective.
I highly doubt this would be allowed now.
Posted on 7/20/24 at 8:37 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Of course not but it COULD be now with the new rule.
I mean you're interpretation is different than mine.
Once again,does publicize mean monetize?
I honestly don't know.
I think you are over thinking it. Yes. It means monetize. A player can make money as long as it does not involve anything with a sport or school. Not even pictures in front of facilities.
quote:
No it isn't. What about the Grayson kid paid by Adidas?
I am not familiar with it. Did he do it in front of his school building or facilities? Do you have a link so I can take a look? I am genuinely curious.
ETA
I looked it up and you are correct. It does seem to be directly connected to the sport and school, although not a collective. My guess is he did it before the law, so it has to stand because of contracts? Guessing.
Or maybe the loophole is it was not done through a collective? Good catch.
I was not trying to be argumentative....just reading it the way it seemed to me. But the Grayson kid would seem to be in violation.
This post was edited on 7/20/24 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 7/21/24 at 12:44 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
But the Grayson kid would seem to be in violation.
Nah.Did it before the rule was passed.Should be fine
Page 1 of 1
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News