Started By
Message
re: Why would the SEC agree to a ‘salary cap’ the same as the ACC or Big-12?
Posted on 5/14/25 at 12:02 pm to Gaston
Posted on 5/14/25 at 12:02 pm to Gaston
quote:
The wildcard here are the NIL Collectives. With the advent of the proposed revenue sharing model, the NCAA has indicated that it will step up enforcement of NIL collectives so that payments to athletes are only for true NIL, and that these entities are not used as vehicles to circumvent (and exceed) the forthcoming $ 20.5 million revenue sharing cap.
From the article your dumbass posted. So, just because you are gaming the system doesn't mean there is legally a difference between NIL and revenue sharing.
1
Posted on 5/14/25 at 12:06 pm to Gaston
quote:
NIL comes with strings attached, and it’s a monthly check from the collective.
No kidding, a kicker who has never played in a college game has no true NIL and getting paid because he’s a top kicker recruit. Nobody would’ve ever thought (/s)…except you who can’t comprehend that, even with you acknowledging he’s getting paid by a collective. Even with strings attached and attending certain events your kid isn’t influencing anything.
Is there any college players that have convinced you to buy something? I’ll bet that’s a big fat no.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 12:14 pm to AUCE05
quote:
you are gaming the system
No one would ‘game the system’ for this little money. The schools ARE forcing kids to sign these deals. This alleviates them from future lawsuits.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 12:16 pm to momentoftruth87
It’s a Florida football player showing up to an event…the advertisers on that banner are paying for the association with UF football players.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 12:23 pm to Gaston
Here is how it is proposed in the NCAA Settlement.
The 22% is a de facto salary cap, but it has nothing to do with NIL which is a completely separate category. SCHOOLS can only pay athletes collectively up to that limit. From what I was able to find, the individual distribution of same is at the school's discretion.
The COMPLETELY SEPARATE NIL provisions outlined in the agreement call for all NIL payments over $600 to be reported to an independent 3rd party (if I recall correctly it suggests that entity is the accounting firm Deloitte). Deloitte would then make a determination as to whether or not the NIL payment is fair market value for the USE of that particular athlete's name, image or likeness. I seriously doubt they will opine on anything other than very large NIL deals.
From the OP's article:
The wildcard here are the NIL Collectives. With the advent of the proposed revenue sharing model, the NCAA has indicated that it will step up enforcement of NIL collectives so that payments to athletes are only for true NIL, and that these entities are not used as vehicles to circumvent (and exceed) the forthcoming $ 20.5 million revenue sharing cap.
The 22% is a de facto salary cap, but it has nothing to do with NIL which is a completely separate category. SCHOOLS can only pay athletes collectively up to that limit. From what I was able to find, the individual distribution of same is at the school's discretion.
The COMPLETELY SEPARATE NIL provisions outlined in the agreement call for all NIL payments over $600 to be reported to an independent 3rd party (if I recall correctly it suggests that entity is the accounting firm Deloitte). Deloitte would then make a determination as to whether or not the NIL payment is fair market value for the USE of that particular athlete's name, image or likeness. I seriously doubt they will opine on anything other than very large NIL deals.
From the OP's article:
The wildcard here are the NIL Collectives. With the advent of the proposed revenue sharing model, the NCAA has indicated that it will step up enforcement of NIL collectives so that payments to athletes are only for true NIL, and that these entities are not used as vehicles to circumvent (and exceed) the forthcoming $ 20.5 million revenue sharing cap.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 12:33 pm to Gaston
quote:
the advertisers on that banner are paying for the association with UF football players.
Correct, not Evan’s name, image, or likeness. Again you’re still not understanding it even though you’re saying it.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 12:38 pm to momentoftruth87
I’m not a lawyer making a case, I’m just telling you what strings are attached to my son getting his monthly check. He has to go sign up for these events and complete them to get it.
I told him to tell them to kick rocks, just say no. I thought the term was too long. Apparently you ARE signing if you are on the team and it’s just a matter of haggling on $. Unless you’re willing to leave there isn’t much haggling either.
I told him to tell them to kick rocks, just say no. I thought the term was too long. Apparently you ARE signing if you are on the team and it’s just a matter of haggling on $. Unless you’re willing to leave there isn’t much haggling either.
This post was edited on 5/14/25 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 5/14/25 at 1:05 pm to Gaston
I think the Vols are better set up to compete in the Mountain West.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 1:58 pm to Gaston
If it was a team vote for SeC teams I think the cap would pass.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 2:00 pm to Gaston
quote:
The schools ARE forcing kids to sign these deals.
Negative. Nobody is forcing anyone to sign anything
Posted on 5/14/25 at 2:09 pm to CelticTiger
quote:
The COMPLETELY SEPARATE NIL provisions outlined in the agreement call for all NIL payments over $600 to be reported to an independent 3rd party (if I recall correctly it suggests that entity is the accounting firm Deloitte). Deloitte would then make a determination as to whether or not the NIL payment is fair market value for the USE of that particular athlete's name, image or likeness. I seriously doubt they will opine on anything other than very large NIL deals.
I think here is one of the bigger problems. Up until 4 years ago, there was no market value for college athletes from advertisers, corporations etc. There was no way to know how much money they could command. All they can do really is have all the collectives who are going to participate submit their balance sheets, look at it and come up with a figure.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 2:14 pm to lefty08
quote:
Nobody is forcing anyone to sign anything
Yea, bullshite.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 2:39 pm to ukraine_rebel
quote:
I think here is one of the bigger problems. Up until 4 years ago, there was no market value for college athletes from advertisers, corporations etc. There was no way to know how much money they could command. All they can do really is have all the collectives who are going to participate submit their balance sheets, look at it and come up with a figure.
Concur. The subjectivity here is off the charts.
Theoretically, Deloitte would look at how that athlete's attributes are advancing the objectives of the payor. Under the proposed agreement I'm not even sure how collectives fit in. if the collective is the payor, what benefit does the collective receive to even determine if the payment to the athlete is fair? Is the collective being paid by donors for use of the athlete's name and and image? If so, how are they using it? Remember, this is designed to prevent pay to play so the benefit would have to be more tangible than the warm fuzzy feeling the donor gets for seeing his team win I would think.
If we go back to pre-collective days, it's a little more straightforward, if still almost impossible to determine. Is the car dealer paying FMV for the athlete to promte his cars? Who knows?
Posted on 5/14/25 at 2:46 pm to CelticTiger
I'll be curious to see what they come up with, but it seems to me that one factor they can look at is the advertising budget of the NIL partner. Say you have a local car dealership that wants to do a deal with a player: if the dealership has a history of shooting local commercials, and the payment doesn't look like an outlier in the dealership's advertising history, then it would probably be FMV.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:06 pm to Gaston
Haha. You’re an idiot if you think any athlete is forced to sign papers. They could pay their own way to school and not play
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:13 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
there any college players that have convinced you to buy something? I’ll bet that’s a big fat no.
I am convinced to not buy something. I stopped buying one branded ice tea when it started to pay nil to Auburn players
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:17 pm to lefty08
Correct. If you’re on the team you’re signing a compensation deal. They are going to have to go back and pay former athletes as part of this…so at least they want to draw a line in the sand and say no one from here on out can sue.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News