Started By
Message
re: NIL nontransfer clauses are null and void
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:29 am to 03 West CoChamps
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:29 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
Rev Share is the 18 Million each SEC school has to pay its players for doing nothing but playing football.
First the amount is 20.5 million this year.
Second it is to be distributed among all athletes not just football.
Third no school is required to pay anyone only if they desire up to the cap.
1
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:29 am to TideWarrior
quote:
First the amount is 20.5 million this year.
It is different for each school. I think the total amount is around 24 million and each school has a unique percentage to football/ M basketball/ W basketball/ everything else.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:31 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
That may be binding. We don't know yet.
We do know.
We already have legal precedent in the form of rulings and settlements.
These collectively bring to bare the lagal stance that athletes have the inherent right to earn money and they have the right to transfer.
Anything the NCAA, conferences or schools do to deny those rights have already been determined illegal.
A contract cannot bind an athlete from exercising his right to transfer.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:33 am to TideWarrior
quote:
Yes and No
Someone who can read and comprehend.
Thank you
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:33 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
It is different for each school. I think the total amount is around 24 million and each school has a unique percentage to football/ M basketball/ W basketball/ everything else.
The cap is set and the same for each school. The breakdown on how and who gets it is up to each school individually.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:34 am to stitchop
quote:
We do know.
We already have legal precedent in the form of rulings and settlements.
No we don't. The previous ruling were player vs collectives which are not attached to schools. Player vs school via Rev Share is a completely new issue.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:34 am to TideWarrior
quote:
The cap is set and the same for each school. The breakdown on how and who gets it is up to each school individually.
Yeah that is what I said.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:35 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
The previous ruling were player vs collectives which are not attached to schools. Player vs school via Rev Share is a completely new issue.
The House settlement addressed both and why we are where we are now.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:36 am to TideWarrior
quote:
The House settlement addressed both and why we are where we are now.
The House settlement doesn't address the issue of signing a Rev Share deal with school x then signing another Rev Share deal with school Y. Is the 1st contract binding? Is it not?
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:39 am to stitchop
I think what will be interesting is if the new commission or entity that is formed can have the power it needs to address it and fix everything.
IIRC one of the reason the NCAA has failed in these lawsuits is it was determined as an entity they did not possess the power to regulate any of this. But I thought I read if moving forward an entity could be created that would require any college athlete to sign an agreement giving power to the entity similar to the NFL/Collective Bargaining process.
The next thing we are going to see is Title IX lawsuits. There is a group already working on this I understand that will have a major impact on revenue sharing and NIL.
IIRC one of the reason the NCAA has failed in these lawsuits is it was determined as an entity they did not possess the power to regulate any of this. But I thought I read if moving forward an entity could be created that would require any college athlete to sign an agreement giving power to the entity similar to the NFL/Collective Bargaining process.
The next thing we are going to see is Title IX lawsuits. There is a group already working on this I understand that will have a major impact on revenue sharing and NIL.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:41 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
The House settlement doesn't address the issue of signing a Rev Share deal with school x then signing another Rev Share deal with school Y. Is the 1st contract binding? Is it not?
My understanding all is does in regard to revenue sharing is allow schools to it legally up to the cap.
I am not a legal expert, but I did not read any language dealing with contracts, if an athlete had to even sign one, or dealing with the transfer of athletes. I believe that is another legal matter in its own.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:44 am to TideWarrior
quote:
I believe that is another legal matter in its own.
That is what I have been saying. Any legal ruling dealing with issues pre House settlement are basically useless because it is a completely different rule set. Contracts are signed with schools not collectives.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:44 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
Is the 1st contract binding? Is it not?
The legal aspects of the contract are enforceable.
Usually, voided clauses in a contract do not void the entire contract, unless the violations are egregious.
The athlete may have to return some of the money.
The point in this thread is that the university is trying to use the rev Share contract to prevent the athletes from transferring.
This part of the contract will absolutely be voided. The issue of the athletes right to transfer within the portal has already been established.
Contracts cannot void that opportunity.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:44 am to OccamsStubble
The transfer portal is stopping them from doing it. You have to be entered into it from Jan 2nd- Jan 16th.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:50 am to LSUtigerNVegas9
quote:
The transfer portal is stopping them from doing it. You have to be entered into it from Jan 2nd- Jan 16th
The portal adds a limit to the transfer, which is reasonable.
This aspect of the transfer is within the NCAA authority the regulate. The portal and soring training will be adjusted and moved accordingly to prevent major disruption.
At some point they will arrive at a somewhat acceptable transfer portal window.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 10:56 am to stitchop
I think we are going to see an all out rebuke of the current system. The NCAA will be left behind.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 11:14 am to stitchop
quote:
This aspect of the transfer is within the NCAA authority the regulate.
No to derail the thread, but I'm pretty sure the first lawsuit against any transfer limitations will likely obliterate this concept. But let's just wait and see. That lawsuit is probably right around the corner....
This post was edited on 1/7/26 at 11:15 am
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:37 pm to ouflak
Lawsuit is coming. You now have kids with an NIL deal bailing for something else. It is pretty simple. You sign, you play. No second-guessing once signed.
It is like a coaching contract. If a school wants another school's coach there is a buyout that has to be paid. This isn't brain surgery, and these kids are most assuredly not brain surgeons. Most of these kids probably cannot legitimately academically qualify for a University
It is like a coaching contract. If a school wants another school's coach there is a buyout that has to be paid. This isn't brain surgery, and these kids are most assuredly not brain surgeons. Most of these kids probably cannot legitimately academically qualify for a University
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:45 pm to JacieNY
I would assume if the initial payment was an up front lump sum, they’d have to pay back what’s left of the original contract. If it’s a payment made in installments he wouldn’t pay back anything from the contract that accounted for his time in that role and he wouldn’t be held accountable for any payment installments not yet received. Depending on frequency of installment payments there may be a little time overlap that may need to be settled.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:46 pm to stitchop
quote:
NIL nontransfer clauses are null and void
Weird Melt...
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News