Started By
Message
re: NIL Cap. It won't mean what you think it means
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:58 am to stitchop
Posted on 11/6/25 at 7:58 am to stitchop
quote:
These morons have so butchered the meaning of what NIL is, until most people who listen to their garbage spewing nonsense think the school's collectives, boosters or other means of getting money to the athletes is what NIL means.
Its easy if you think of NIL as endorsements, rather than salary. There still isnt an actual salary being paid to any of these players. "NIL" became the de facto pot of money used to pay players basically as a workaround since schools cant directly pay players but it did become a weird hybrid where its not actually about "Name Image and Likeness" and is essentially just a salary being indirectly paid to players, rather than players making money on their NIL.
The ncaa should have caved on NIL decades ago and we never would have been in this mess. Let the star qb make $10k doing a commercial for the local car dealership or make a couple thousand bucks signing autographs. That would have been true NIL and would have prevented the broken system we're in now.
0
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:52 am to 3down10
quote:
I really don't know what you are generally talking about in this thread to be honest.
You actually went to to say what I've been saying.
I would like to add, that the purpose of my thread is to change the incorrect thought process.
As soon as someone mentions NIL, most people immediately think about boosters and collective payments to athletes. That part of it is just the hidden part being allowed now.
That part of NIL can be limited by schools , conferences, NCAA, state laws, federal laws.
But, what the ruling allows is much broader. An individual athlete can make a deal with a business or whatever, unaffiliated with the school for whatever those two private entities decide to pay the athletes for their endorsement or whatever, maybe just because they like tall fast basketball players.
That part of NIL will not be limited by NCAA, and Congress will not pass a law limiting how much an athlete can make independent of the school
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:58 am to New Money
quote:
I'll agree that you don't understand
I agree that you don't read
What you said is exactly one of my points
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:48 am to ouflak
quote:
Congress (and even the Executive to some extent through EO's) can extend and elaborate those rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. This has been done through labor laws, anti-trust laws, commerce laws and regulations, etc.... But Congress cannot repeal or 'override' those rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. And I'm amazed at how many people keep arguing that this is somehow a thing that can be done. The Supreme Court will smash with a firm gavel any attempt to do that to pieces - unanimously. As they should, since that's what they are there for.
The NCAA is a voluntary association. The members who join it agree to abide by certain rules regarding player eligibility. Athletes have succeeded in having those limitations curbed as anti-trust violations, under federal statute, because it is a combination in restraint of trade in violation of federal anti-trust laws. But for the anti-trust laws, colleges would be free to enter into any kind of contracts that they wish, so, if you amend the anti-trust laws to create an exception for this type of contract in restraint of trade, then there is no cause of action for the athletes claiming harm.
Despite the fact that some colleges are state supported, not all are, and their entering into private contracts does not constitute state action, so there is no constitutional issue.
Page 3 of 3
Latest Ole Miss News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News