Started By
Message
NIL/transfer portal question
Posted on 4/20/25 at 10:52 pm
Posted on 4/20/25 at 10:52 pm
With so many players demanding money, can colleges backload NIL contracts, which would lower the financial risk for schools and also slow players from jumping in and out of the transfer portal because their biggest payout is at the end of their NIL deal?
5
Posted on 4/20/25 at 11:02 pm to homemadeshine
Theoretically, yes.
Without a collective bargaining agreement that ensures that all of the schools transition to that format at the same time, it would fail.
School 1 - "We want you to stay for four years, and you only get the money if you stay and play."
School 2 - "We'll give the money to ya right freaking now."
Where do you think the kid is gonna go?
Without a collective bargaining agreement that ensures that all of the schools transition to that format at the same time, it would fail.
School 1 - "We want you to stay for four years, and you only get the money if you stay and play."
School 2 - "We'll give the money to ya right freaking now."
Where do you think the kid is gonna go?
Posted on 4/20/25 at 11:47 pm to homemadeshine
I’m sure they can, if the university is the one paying. All you have to do is create that in contract. The problem right now is there’s no clarity on rules. Are university’s paying players, or is it just sponsorships? Or is it university’s paying right now as pretend sponsorships? University’s probably aren’t signing actual contracts because it’s not within the rules yet.
Posted on 4/21/25 at 7:12 am to TriStateAreaFootball
quote:
…Without a collective bargaining agreement…
A union and a collective bargaining agreement are a pipe dream - not going to happen.
The parameters look like they are being set one lawsuit at a time….
Posted on 4/21/25 at 7:58 am to homemadeshine
If school A offers a backloaed contract and school B pays everything up front, what would be more appealing to you?
I see people keep talking about additional rules and structure. I don't see that happening. It should happen, and the NCAA should have made it happen generations ago. However, with Kavanaugh's SCOTUS decision now out there, any attempt to impact the earning of these kids will lose in court.
I see people keep talking about additional rules and structure. I don't see that happening. It should happen, and the NCAA should have made it happen generations ago. However, with Kavanaugh's SCOTUS decision now out there, any attempt to impact the earning of these kids will lose in court.
Posted on 4/21/25 at 8:29 am to TriStateAreaFootball
School 1's offer cannot legally exist.
The way these contracts work is usually in exchange for $X, student will make Y amount of radio/podcast/interview/other media appearances, sign Z amount of autographs, be available to fans at events, allow use of name/likeness to put on apparel in exchange for sales, etc.
None of the language can contain anything about playing a game.
The way these contracts work is usually in exchange for $X, student will make Y amount of radio/podcast/interview/other media appearances, sign Z amount of autographs, be available to fans at events, allow use of name/likeness to put on apparel in exchange for sales, etc.
None of the language can contain anything about playing a game.
Posted on 4/21/25 at 9:11 am to homemadeshine
The problem with this is that too many collectives offer flashy deals upfront. Everyone always wants an edge. You would have to have a collective agreement to do back-loaded contracts.
The best way to bring down prices is to ramp up the supply through extending eligibility. I think 7 years is reasonable. Do this and the value of high players go down dramatically except for maybe a dozen can't miss players.
The best way to bring down prices is to ramp up the supply through extending eligibility. I think 7 years is reasonable. Do this and the value of high players go down dramatically except for maybe a dozen can't miss players.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:02 am to SneezyBeltranIsHere
quote:
If school A offers a backloaed contract and school B pays everything up front, what would be more appealing to you?
I get what you're saying, but what if the Power 5 conferences all agreed that all NIL deals should be backloaded? I think it's a win-win situation for the Power 5 schools because it would drastically cut down on players transferring every year and give more stability to each team because schools won't be losing their best players every year.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:38 am to Quicksilver
quote:
School 1's offer cannot legally exist.
None of the language can contain anything about playing a game.
There's nothing illegal about it. Heck, if anything, that's the American way. The problem is that it just blatantly opens up the can of worms that a good number of people don't want opened (clear and obvious employment).
Posted on 4/22/25 at 2:31 am to homemadeshine
quote:
get what you're saying, but what if the Power 5 conferences all agreed that all NIL deals should be backloaded?
Sounds like an antitrust violation. The DoJ has stepped up wage-fixing prosecutions lately, and just got a criminal conviction DOJ
There isn't any labor agreement, which is how the Big 4 leagues have antitrust exemptions. In fact, when there is an impasse, players will often decertify the union and have a group sue the league under antitrust
Posted on 4/22/25 at 7:49 am to homemadeshine
A school could simply say they ain't paying nobody for nothing, beyond whatever the revenue share has to be by law. The problem is that another school will say "we will pay everybody for something" and that second schools is probably going to be more attractive to players than the first one....
Posted on 4/22/25 at 7:51 am to homemadeshine
quote:
I get what you're saying, but what if the Power 5 conferences all agreed that all NIL deals should be backloaded?
The Bama or Oklahoma or Auburn or someone like that will do under the table front-loaded deals, and we are back to the wild west again.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 8:00 am to homemadeshine
quote:
I get what you're saying, but what if the Power 5 conferences all agreed that all NIL deals should be backloaded?
Wouldn't that be an anti-trust violation or some sort of collusion to keep wages down? Can't do it with plumbers so probably can't with football players....
Posted on 4/22/25 at 5:31 pm to dukkbill
quote:
Sounds like an antitrust violation. The DoJ has stepped up wage-fixing prosecutions lately, and just got a criminal conviction DOJ
So judging from your response, it sounds like it is what it is and there's not a whole lot college football can do about it. That's depressing!
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News