1
Started By
Message
re: B1G setting the example, Sankey following. B1G sets $49 million NIL cap.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 9:22 am to AwgustaDawg
Posted on 10/29/26 at 9:22 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Presumably it would be between the players organization and the university. It is hard to imagine a roll for conferences based on well established labor law
I’ve long thought that a CBA is more likely than congressional action, but a CBA is more complicated than people realize.
State schools in both Texas and Alabama would not be allowed to participate under their state laws. Changing that has far reaching implications that might not happen.
So there’s a scenario where Bama and Texas don’t have FBS athletic programs.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 9:26 am to Jobu93
quote:
Caps are dangerous. That’s how you get unions and CBAs
Without the other two, caps are highly illegal. It carries both civil and criminal penalties. It’s very basic antitrust law.
Fortunately for the governing bodies in college sports the DOJ has been very sympathetic to the issue.
Civil courts including SCOTUS continues to rule against them in just about every case.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 9:34 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:
How in the hell is the BIG10 or anyone going to tell me I can't give a QB who ain't ever taken a snap in CFB $50 Million to come to my car lot and sign autographs if I want to? The courts have been abundantly clear - they can't.
Only congressional action can reverse rules that allow players to make whatever they can from private parties.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 9:54 am to pankReb
quote:
NIL cap.
quote:Thanks Pank!
That’s not what that is
The very last sentence in the document specifically says, "This policy applies to institutional action only as student-athletes remain free to pursue NIL opportunities with any entity (associated or non-associated) on their own."
This policy isn't capping or restricting an athlete from making whatever they can from their NIL.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 10:43 am to Go Go Gata
I see a huge anti trust lawsuit coming.
It’s one thing to have a salary cap for member institutions, but to attempt to regulate 3rd party NIL deals is so dumb.
For instance: every player would have to look at the others NIL deal before signing one to make sure the cumulative does not exceed it.
You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. This was the downfall of NCAA control. The only regulation left on competitive advantage is PEDs.
No matter how you dress that pig up by saying the school runs the NIL distribution or the players have to hustle it is stupid and it doesn’t change any of the base line facts.
Is TAF LSU or is that an independent group who support LSU athletics that runs adjacent to the university?
It’s one thing to have a salary cap for member institutions, but to attempt to regulate 3rd party NIL deals is so dumb.
For instance: every player would have to look at the others NIL deal before signing one to make sure the cumulative does not exceed it.
You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. This was the downfall of NCAA control. The only regulation left on competitive advantage is PEDs.
No matter how you dress that pig up by saying the school runs the NIL distribution or the players have to hustle it is stupid and it doesn’t change any of the base line facts.
Is TAF LSU or is that an independent group who support LSU athletics that runs adjacent to the university?
This post was edited on 10/29/26 at 10:47 am
Posted on 10/29/26 at 1:02 pm to Motownsix
quote:
I’ve long thought that a CBA is more likely than congressional action, but a CBA is more complicated than people realize.
State schools in both Texas and Alabama would not be allowed to participate under their state laws. Changing that has far reaching implications that might not happen.
So there’s a scenario where Bama and Texas don’t have FBS athletic programs.
I think a CBA was possible 8 or so years ago when players were talking about a union and most people poo-pooed the idea and were of the opinion they should just sit down, shut up and be thankful they were being "given" an education. I don't think it was going to be a long term fix but I think it would have put off where we are today by 20-30 years. It didn't happen and here we are.
Labor laws in RTW states are going to put programs in those states at an extreme competitive disadvantage against states with out RTW laws. I isn't practical to apply labor law to one industry or individual employers and it is almost a certainty labor laws in RTW states are not going to change significantly to mitigate the advantage in non RTW states. The fact that compulsory membership in Michigan means every player is a member while only those who want to join in Georgia means Georgia will have fewer members, which in turns means less leverage which in turn means less money and lower standards of working conditions. That means a lot of talent in Georgia will be headed to Michigan instead of Alabama or South Carolina and in turn less talented players who weren't "hired" at Michigan will head south. That is not insignificant. That is just in negotiating....the difference in grievances and workers comp and all mannner of shite will place programs in RTW states at a disadvantage....and it ain't likely those states will change no matter how bad they love college football. It works for the NFL and pro leagues because they have either an anti-trust exemption or a defacto one. There is some anti-trust type protections that could be granted to CFB but generally it would mean CFB having a regulatory body and the courts have pretty much said that ain't happening....
Posted on 10/29/26 at 1:11 pm to Motownsix
quote:
Only congressional action can reverse rules that allow players to make whatever they can from private parties.
Anything congress could do is subject to the scrutiny of the courts....and they have been pretty simple in their decisions....nothing can limit the earning potential of an individual nor their right to move. Eventually the LSU case is going to be won by LSU and there is going to be no limit on eligibility. That will include academic eligibility or even being a known degenerate gambler. It is illegal as frick for an entire industry to agree not to hire an entire group of possible applicants for almost any reason other than not being qualified, and it would not be possible to argue that this person was qualified last season but not this season based solely on the fact that the person had already played 5 seasons. I ain't no lawyer but I don't see how any of that ever works....
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News