NIL bill expected in House would provide legal help sought by NCAA-Update- New Bill Introduced July 25, 2023

[Knight Shift]

Better late than never.



while the House does not yet have the bill’s text, he is “prepared to offer a synopsis of what the bill will entail.”

That includes:

• Safeguards “from retaliation by an institution of higher education for student-athletes who have signed a NIL deal.”
• The creation of a “new regulatory body tasked with establishing and enforcing rules pertaining to collectives, boosters, and student-athlete endorsement contracts. Student-athletes who enter into a contract will be required to report their agreement to this new body and their university within a specified period.” Collectives are booster- and business-driven groups that have formed to pool resources and provide NIL opportunities for athletes at schools since the NCAA has made rule changes substantially enhancing athletes’ ability to make money not only from endorsements, but also from personal appearances, autograph signings and other activities.
• A provision “clarifying that student-athletes are not eligible for employee status.”
• Language “providing liability protection to protect institutions from frivolous litigation.”

NIL bill expected in House would provide legal help sought by NCAA, letter says

A bill that is expected to be drafted in the House would create a "new regulatory body" to enforce rules pertaining to collectives and boosters.

www.usatoday.com

UPDATE: Leave it to the Federal Govt to F things up and do nothing, which are not mutually exclusive "actions."



UPDATE:

 

[RUBlackout7]

Just let them be employees and get it over with.

 

[Knight Shift]

Just let them be employees and get it over with.

Why do that? That would entitle them to benefits. Part-time employees (at least instructors) get free tuition for and for their kids. When does the gravy train end?

 

[RUforlife]

No chance of getting thru the Senate or being signed by the President. Another useless bill by the House Republicans.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Just ban it at the conference level. Big 10 and SEC shake hands behind closed doors, ban NIL in the same month, and the whole thing goes back to normal.

 

[mdk01]

No chance of getting thru the Senate or being signed by the President. Another useless bill by the House Republicans.

Yeah, clarifying employee status would deprive the litigation bar of some potentially juicy contingency fees. No chance of the President or Senate allowing THAT to happen.

 

[rucoe89]

Just ban it at the conference level. Big 10 and SEC shake hands behind closed doors, ban NIL in the same month, and the whole thing goes back to normal.

Not likely. May start to raise antitrust issues.

 

[Knight Shift]

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Not likely. May start to raise antitrust issues.

The Supreme Court explicitly said the conferences could ban it individually.

 

[bac2therac]

Good luck

 

[RUAldo]

View embedded media

What “contracts”? Seems to me these are just sham arrangements or straight up payments made to players. The whole notion that players actually have to work to earn NIL went out the window.

 

[retired711]

I'm not sure this should be taken very seriously. There were a number of NIL bills introduced in the last Congress. They didn't go anywhere because Republicans and Democrats couldn't agree what should be in them. This bill might be able to pass the House because it is introduced by a Republican subcommittee chair and Republicans have a majority in the House, but remember that the Senate and Presidency are controlled by Democrats.

 

[retired711]

The Supreme Court explicitly said the conferences could ban it individually.

Yes, but the Court also said that multiconference agreements would be improper. In addition, a large number of states have passed legislation allowing NIL, and that legislation would override any bans. The only solution is federal legislation -- and as I indicated in my post, no one should hold their breath expecting that to pass.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Yes, but the Court also said that multiconference agreements would be improper. In addition, a large number of states have passed legislation allowing NIL, and that legislation would override any bans. The only solution is federal legislation -- and as I indicated in my post, no one should hold their breath expecting that to pass.

That's why I said "behind closed doors" (commissioner to commissioner). Just do it. The other conferences will follow.

 

[rucoe89]

The Supreme Court explicitly said the conferences could ban it individually.

If that is the case, I think its foregone that most Blue Chips in the conferences will push hard not to ban it. They have the $$$ to play in NIL and lock up the top players.

 

[rucoe89]

Yes, but the Court also said that multiconference agreements would be improper. In addition, a large number of states have passed legislation allowing NIL, and that legislation would override any bans. The only solution is federal legislation -- and as I indicated in my post, no one should hold their breath expecting that to pass.

Federal Legislation = Dead End

 

[AdventureHasAName]

If that is the case, I think its foregone that most Blue Chips in the conferences will push hard not to ban it. They have the $$$ to play in NIL and lock up the top players.

You'd think that, but Nick Saban has been the most outspoken against it. These schools dont want the added headache.

 

[robcac26]

That's why I said "behind closed doors" (commissioner to commissioner). Just do it. The other conferences will follow.

Why would they follow? They would view it as an opportunity to make their conference a more lucrative option than the SEC and Big 10.

I've said it before, but the best option would be what Canadian major junior hockey does--every player gets a stipend, and it's about the same for everybody. This way the players get some money without it becoming a recruiting battleground.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Why would they follow? They would view it as an opportunity to make their conference a more lucrative option than the SEC and Big 10.

I've said it before, but the best option would be what Canadian major junior hockey does--every player gets a stipend, and it's about the same for everybody. This way the players get some money without it becoming a recruiting battleground.

That's been in place for decades. The Supreme Court just invalidated it.

 

[newell138]

lets just have all our men declare themselves women and dominate every NCAA sport on the female side

 

[rucoe89]

You'd think that, but Nick Saban has been the most outspoken against it. These schools dont want the added headache.

Probably why soon ADs will include GMs (multiple - at least one for FB, one for BB, and one for everything else)

 

[retired711]

That's why I said "behind closed doors" (commissioner to commissioner). Just do it. The other conferences will follow.

Antitrust lawyers make a living out of demonstrating that two entities made a tacit agreement. It's too risky.

 

[retired711]

Federal Legislation = Dead End

Sting would agree: "There is no political solution/ To our troubled evolution." The problem is that there is no other solution. Without federal legislation, the NIL free-for-all will continue indefinitely.

 

[hankee18]

I didn't see anyone mention tax revenues

The government will need to get involved at some point to regulate it so they can collect their vig

 

[mdk01]

I didn't see anyone mention tax revenues

The government will need to get involved at some point to regulate it so they can collect their vig

With the increased reporting they'll have assurance they will get their SE tax along with income tax.

 

[rutgersguy1]

 

[RUScrew85]

Better late than never.

View embedded media

while the House does not yet have the bill’s text, he is “prepared to offer a synopsis of what the bill will entail.”

That includes:

• Safeguards “from retaliation by an institution of higher education for student-athletes who have signed a NIL deal.”
• The creation of a “new regulatory body tasked with establishing and enforcing rules pertaining to collectives, boosters, and student-athlete endorsement contracts. Student-athletes who enter into a contract will be required to report their agreement to this new body and their university within a specified period.” Collectives are booster- and business-driven groups that have formed to pool resources and provide NIL opportunities for athletes at schools since the NCAA has made rule changes substantially enhancing athletes’ ability to make money not only from endorsements, but also from personal appearances, autograph signings and other activities.
• A provision “clarifying that student-athletes are not eligible for employee status.”
• Language “providing liability protection to protect institutions from frivolous litigation.”

NIL bill expected in House would provide legal help sought by NCAA, letter says

A bill that is expected to be drafted in the House would create a "new regulatory body" to enforce rules pertaining to collectives and boosters.

www.usatoday.com

Doesn't matter. Some future Geo will take whatever restrictions that try to preserve college sports to court and enforce the professional college sports.

This battle is lost.

 

[RUScrew85]

Just ban it at the conference level. Big 10 and SEC shake hands behind closed doors, ban NIL in the same month, and the whole thing goes back to normal.

Nope. The courts are already involved. The players are getting paid for as long as folks are willing to buy tickets to what was amateur college sports.

 

[RUScrew85]

The Supreme Court explicitly said the conferences could ban it individually.

Do you have a cite for that?

 

[RUScrew85]

That's why I said "behind closed doors" (commissioner to commissioner). Just do it. The other conferences will follow.

I don't think they will. If the B1G and SEC banned NIL the athletes would flock to the conferences that paid them.

I think the cat's (rowr) out of the bag.

 

[RUScrew85]

Federal Legislation = Dead End

IANAL but legislation would seem to be restraint of trade. And the only way college sports works is if the sports are amateur without free agents.

Modern players want to be paid, and live in luxury, and have the best facilities, and have free tutors and play in palaces. It's not amateur sports any more.

Unless the players agree we'd have to go back to basically groups of students playing groups of students at other colleges.

 

[RUScrew85]

If that is the case, I think its foregone that most Blue Chips in the conferences will push hard not to ban it. They have the $$$ to play in NIL and lock up the top players.

Plus the schools won't care - it doesn't cost them anything - the boosters pay NIL and really always have under the table.

I don't see how this is ever put back where it should be.

And maybe it shouldn't. College sports is such a big business I can see why the short sighted, young players want to be paid. The process only has to last four years for them. They don't care about the kids or fans in 10 or 20 years when college football becomes the XFL(#2) and folks stop watching.

 

[rucoe89]

Plus the schools won't care - it doesn't cost them anything - the boosters pay NIL and really always have under the table.

I don't see how this is ever put back where it should be.

And maybe it shouldn't. College sports is such a big business I can see why the short sighted, young players want to be paid. The process only has to last four years for them. They don't care about the kids or fans in 10 or 20 years when college football becomes the XFL(#2) and folks stop watching.

Definitely see college ball morphing into XFL 2 or ESPN 3 on 3 where you don't know anyone and don't even care to root for the clothes.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Do you have a cite for that?

The Alston ruling upholds the lower case ruling and specifically quotes it, "And the court emphasized that its injunction applies only to the NCAA and multiconference agreements; individual conferences remain free to reimpose every single enjoined restraint tomorrow—or more restrictive ones still."

 

[RUScrew85]

Definitely see college ball morphing into XFL 2 or ESPN 3 on 3 where you don't know anyone and don't even care to root for the clothes.

Sadly, that's what I'm expecting.

 

[RUScrew85]

The Alston ruling upholds the lower case ruling and specifically quotes it, "And the court emphasized that its injunction applies only to the NCAA and multiconference agreements; individual conferences remain free to reimpose every single enjoined restraint tomorrow—or more restrictive ones still."

Thanks. I wonder if they decide to do that if it doesn't end up back in court to clarify and it gets overturned. Sigh.

 

[RUScrew85]

The Alston ruling upholds the lower case ruling and specifically quotes it, "And the court emphasized that its injunction applies only to the NCAA and multiconference agreements; individual conferences remain free to reimpose every single enjoined restraint tomorrow—or more restrictive ones still."

It might just work for the smaller (weaker) conferences once/if my expected pro-college sports development takes place.

 

[retired711]

Do you have a cite for that?

I do. 141 S.Ct. at 2164. That says that individual conferences can restrict benefits to athletes. But as I pointed out, that's not really helpful because agreements between conferences, either express or tacit, are still banned.

 

[retired711]

The Alston ruling upholds the lower case ruling and specifically quotes it, "And the court emphasized that its injunction applies only to the NCAA and multiconference agreements; individual conferences remain free to reimpose every single enjoined restraint tomorrow—or more restrictive ones still."

Again, the key words are "individual conferences." Any tacit agreement between conferences would still be barred.

 

[retired711]

IANAL but legislation would seem to be restraint of trade. And the only way college sports works is if the sports are amateur without free agents.

Modern players want to be paid, and live in luxury, and have the best facilities, and have free tutors and play in palaces. It's not amateur sports any more.

Unless the players agree we'd have to go back to basically groups of students playing groups of students at other colleges.

Legislation would not be restraint of trade. Rather, Congress would be carving out an exception to its existing antitrust laws barring restraint of trade.