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 7:53 pm to meansonny
Posted on 12/7/22 at 7:53 pm to meansonny
quote:
Not in Georgia, my friend.
quote:
non-compete agreements, signed after May 2011, are enforceable in the State of Georgia. In fact, the laws governing the enforceability of non-compete agreements are favorable for businesses in the state. The key to enforceability is construction and consideration.
Those two words construction and consideration will determine in GA like other states what will be enforceable.
0
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
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:08 pm to 3down10
quote:
You are exactly right. All these rules are being put in for what in the end amounts to benefiting the top 1% of players, while at the same time screwing over the other 99% who basically have 0 NIL value.
Yea, the players getting money are the players that were already getting money and also potentially going pro and making even more money later.
The ones who weren’t making money and don’t have a future in the pro’s, are getting fricked over.
This includes non-revenue sports players.
I’ll be surprised if the amount of scholarships on non-football and basketball teams isn’t cut in half in a decade.
Funding and donations will dry up to nothing as virtually all donor money is funneled to NIL.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:20 pm to meansonny
quote:
Wrong.
The value is not for the junkyard.
The value is for the endorsement.
If Archie manning is getting $1M for 1 endorsement and hundreds of thousands for more endorsements ***based on potential in college*** before he even takes a snap, then "a kid" can argue his value at $1M. You joke about a 20 second endorsement. But a 20 second endorsement rights for 50 years on a kid whose future potential is indeterminable (can you guarantee he won't be a 1st round pick? Can you guarantee he won't be a pro bowler? Can you guarantee he won't be in the pro football HOF)?
It's not just the junkyard, it's that the junkyard is putting the ad to a small audience and nobody would ever pay someone that much money for such things.
Posted on 12/7/22 at 10:25 pm to meansonny
quote:
Not in Georgia, my friend.
Again... every state is different.
If you are a programmer, then you can he a programmer in Georgia.
You probably would not be able to bring any resources to your new employer (client list, protected intellectual property, etc..) and you definitely would not be permitted to solicit or recruit prior customers/coworkers for a specific amount of time (typically 1 year).
Your state may be completely different. And I won't get out of my skis.
But there are several precedents of the government protecting your right to put food on the table.
I don't know the laws in all states, and I'm not a lawyer. I just know about this because I've signed one. So when you say this business can't do this and that, I just know that it is actually possible.
And I know the terms of what I signed was what I said previously. That I could not get a job in the same industry, but I could get any other programming job I wanted. What I do is not industry specific, I can do it in any industry, so there was no conflict.
I signed the agreement of my own free will knowing full well what I was signing. Maybe I could have hired a lawyer who could have argued this and that, but I have morals and it never affected me anyway.
This post was edited on 12/7/22 at 10:26 pm
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 9:28 am to 3down10
quote:
The NCAA is an organization that schools voluntary join. No school is ever forced legally to take the punishments given, it's all voluntary.
There are no laws involved, only the internal rules of an organization.
The NCAA, as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out, is really an economic cartel. Its rules largely are designed to protect that cartel's economic viability.
The reason the NCAA is having an existential crisis is because the Supreme Court has declared that the economic cartel the NCAA protects is illegal and cannot continue.
It's never been about "amateurism." It's always been about money--who makes it, who gets it, and most importantly, who controls it.
This whole thing is testing some people's long-professed love of the free market. People always claim they love free markets, until a free market gets ready to swallow something they like. If we really believe that free markets are the most efficient allocation methods, then we should embrace this.
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.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 11:06 am to Jjdoc
We may as well go to contracts with release clauses like they do in European soccer
Posted on 12/8/22 at 2:58 pm to 3down10
quote:It can sound to you like whatever you want... I'm just trying to help you understand a bit more so you get why the NCAA is doing something very tricky in restricting players. Have a look at the link below. It's absurdly complicated. Have a look at the post by NaturalRebState, who is a lawyer. I work in finance and used to do a decent amount of M&A. This stuff came up constantly. MOST COMMONLY but not always, companies keep paying people during the noncompete period or give a big severance package that includes a noncompete.
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.
(1) People sign unenforceable contracts all the time. (2) People/entities with deep pockets tend to get sued... the NCAA and many schools have deep pockets. Many are protected by being state owned institutions to some extent but many aren't.
Imagine how it would look in court for say Notre Dame to try to enforce a noncompete on a 19 year old kid with a poor background who reads on a 9th grade level and had no legal representation at the time of signing his "contract".
Noncompete by State
This post was edited on 12/8/22 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:04 pm to NaturalStateReb
quote:This man gets it. Very refreshing...
NaturalStateReb
Now we can go back to bickering about Freeze and Kiffin
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:16 pm to paperwasp
quote:
college athletes in which they say that they should be qualified as employees
If this happens, could an employment contract then have a Non-compete clause worked in it that would prevent or penalize an athlete from going to another school?
Posted on 12/8/22 at 3:31 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
If this happens, could an employment contract then have a Non-compete clause worked in it that would prevent or penalize an athlete from going to another school?
I don't know, I assume they would essentially be State employees.
Which IMO implies that they are eligible for benefits like retirement or a pension, health insurance, etc.
In this scenario, you could have a 5th-year senior who graduates with a masters degree, works for five years in the same system, and is fully vested (thus completing 10 years of service).
And we're talking about athletes across all collegiate sports, not just football.
How anyone could possibly think we could all pay for this down the road is a mystery, hence why I said it would probably end college sports as we know it.
Posted on 12/8/22 at 4:00 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:Look above at the posts by me and NaturalStateReb above... the answer is probably no.
have a Non-compete clause
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News