How are endorsements for pros any different than NIL?

ACMETiger00 · 2024-12-02T04:52:19.988Z

Even if there’s a revenue sharing model, salary caps, etc. what’s to stop a booster from still throwing a kid a million dollars to promote his car dealership or some other business? The NFL has salary caps, but that doesn’t stop athletes from getting huge payments from endorsement deals. With that being said, is the NIL the main problem, or is it more the portal? Regardless of the money, pros are obligated to stay with their respective team until their contract runs out.

certainly most of us, like frogs in the boiling pot, may be guilty of one degree of hypocritical apathy or another about the extant shenanigans within the sport's landscape in years prior. But that doesn't mean that we/they are wrong when they finally notice that a critical mass has been reached - even if some were too slow to realize or admit it at prior stages. It's not like "the institutions" **aren't** in some way being fundamentally changed.

I can appreciate and acknowledge that the status quo from say, 5 or 10 years ago . . . or even 30 or 40, wasn't some squeaky clean alternative in which things were all squeaky clean. But what many are doing now is being forced to come to terms with recent events as one of the inevitable consequences of all that came prior. Citing hypocritical apathy about past status quos is true as far as it goes, but in order to make that accusation stick, we have to assume their observations about the fundamental changes in those institutions are more or less true. And they are. this is the flowering of all that was allowed to happen to the game in decades prior. It's not only that, but it's largely attributable to it.

It also may be the case that by "institutions" he may have meant the "institution" of the sport itself, as opposed to the schools. I'm not sure which he meant. The changes are applicable to both, of course, though.

mrmatt

Dynasty Maker [3283]

TigerPulse: 94%

Posts: 5443

Joined: 2006

You raise a good point . . . it could be a problem . . .

Dec 2, 2024, 9:42 AM

From a legal standpoint, I don't think it's different in principle. Some may tend to think of NIL as a college athletics term of art, when really it's just a reference to basic legal prerogatives to engage in commerce via one's personal "brand." As such, you're right, there's nothing legally problematic with a business deal with a kid that happens to be a notable figure b/c of his athletic prowess. I suppose if a player can arrange an NIL deal that puts him above/outside the money he's making via his revenue sharing share, then there's not a thing legally wrong with it, and strictly speaking, there isn't anything really morally wrong with it either, if we assume that it's an honest/earnest economic deal.

I think the complication would be if schools hit their rev share cap, but need to spend some more, so they insert themselves in some way - reach out to the boosters and say "hey, guys, we need to locate some more "EXTERNAL 'revenue' sharing (wink-wink) - can you drum something up?" If that happens, then it would seem to disrupt the planned stability of the new settlement regarding rev sharing. I'm not even saying that kind of thing would be illegal or against the rules, necessarily. After all, if the school isn't spending beyond the cap, then that side-deal is just a matter of economic freedom, from a legal standpoint. But it sure could disrupt what some are assuming is going to be an indefinitely stable arrangement. I think where it goes from there depends on what kinds of regulations, if any, the NCAA puts on school and/or booster involvement with arranging/facilitating side-deals like. Even if they do I don't know how you "police" it (practically or legally) beyond just banning official school involvement. If a non-school-affiliated collective for NIL facilitation forms where players can just call up an independent agency and get a list of possible deals, then restrictions on that from the NCAA would probably attract the similar kinds of complaints and law-suits as the prior restrictions did.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Re: How are endorsements for pros any different than NIL?

No they can't, since they lost the Ohio vs NCAA case

Hey - you said - NCAA - that is funny!!***

Neither is a problem.

Re: Neither is a problem.

LMAO, institutions being torn down?

Well that's sort a false dichotomy . . .

Re: LMAO, institutions being torn down?

The sport was built in exploitation.

"Unexpected consequences"???

Alone neither would have the same chaotic effect...

Re: Alone neither would have the same chaotic effect...

You neglect to mention that...

Fwiw I was initially responding to the thread starter's last...

There is a difference, and that is what the legal battles will be about.

Massive amount of well paid manpower to protect the cap...

Re: How are endorsements for pros any different than NIL?

It's going to be another fight.

You raise a good point . . . it could be a problem . . .

the pros do not get endorsement deals soley to

I think the OP was assuming what you just said to be true . . .

Re: How are endorsements for pros any different than NIL?

Because NFL players are contracted to teams

By golly I agree with the Coot

For one, endorsements are not used to lure players to an NFL team

TigerBoard POTD