Jordan91 Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago Restricting NIL will immediately be challenged in court. 1 Quote
HelloThere Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 49 minutes ago, Jordan91 said: Restricting NIL will immediately be challenged in court. Yep, and the only way it survives is some sort of antitrust exemption. Since I don't believe the legislation has any chance of passing, I have not read what antitrust exemptions they would include. If they have those then it could pass the courts. I have no problem with there being debate in Washington about this, especially considering local (school picked) judges are currently running college football. My issue, like others have stated, is that government involvement never works out. It just doesn't. That said, the nature of the courts involvement right now is never going to work out either. 1 Quote
TTown Posted 43 minutes ago Posted 43 minutes ago From Dellenger- 25 million retention pool $ + 5 mil for women. So 51 mil overall.But the kicker is they want to close loopholes on Associated Entities /MMR/ Sponsors etc. Worried about circumventing the Cap. Seems that will be a Court challenge for sure from athletes . But the bill isn't finalized yet so the devil is in the details. And even if the stars align in the Senate, good luck in the House. That's a whole different game with time ticking away . 1 Quote
Bobby Burton Posted 37 minutes ago Author Posted 37 minutes ago 3 hours ago, CutaneousHorn said: Why is the president of the Yankees involved? Exactly! Quote
Bobby Burton Posted 35 minutes ago Author Posted 35 minutes ago 3 hours ago, Lnghrn said: Bobby - any idea what is captured in the restrictive NIL language? Not sure how you can restrict legit nil. Generally UT is going to be in a good position with legit nil due to size of Austin, UT brand in Texas and nationally. Hopefully this would get rid of schools that are calling crap nil that is really pay for play. Language is not finalized is my understanding. Quote
TTown Posted 27 minutes ago Posted 27 minutes ago 2 minutes ago, Bobby Burton said: Language is not finalized is my understanding. Agree . Seems Learfield has gotten all their deals for UT through the Clearinghouse. I read that when they responded to Kessler trying to get Associated Entities more leeway. Believe he didn't get that yet, but is still trying with the original judge on House Settlement. Assume Nike and others we use have gotten deals through. So Texas should be in a good place, but still see litigation coming on that issue , again depending on what is in the Bill. Quote
TTown Posted 19 minutes ago Posted 19 minutes ago Dellenger just tweeted the Majority Leader sounding more optimistic. Thune Said headed in right direction. Which can only mean headed in Big 10/ SEC demands haha. Maria Cantwell oh never mind not worth it😂 1 Quote
GoHorns1 Posted 16 minutes ago Posted 16 minutes ago 3 hours ago, Hal Kemp said: Totally agree with you! Not a federal issue, nor a federal problem. I hope it doesn’t pass. Who is going to enforce the rules with punishment with tough consequences for violating the rules? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.