Lawyers for the Plaintiffs in House Agreement fire 1st shot

[GoHorns1]

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/breaking-news/article/house-attorneys-slam-ncaa-and-power-conferences-over-denied-nil-deals-issue-legal-warning-about-settlement-205015881.html?guccounter=2

[GoHorns1]

Get lots of popcorn ready, going to be wild!

[jonbailey]

Where do we think this goes?

[Paul Jespersen]

and we are off...

to where we don't know, but off we go!

🤘

[GoHorns1]

15 minutes ago, jonbailey said:

Where do we think this goes?

Based on recent court rulings concerning the NIL the CSC is going to lose its court ruling.

Edited 5 hours ago by GoHorns1

[Rocky P]

No matter what happens, its going to be appealed and litigated for a long time

[ArizonaLonghorn]

I was going to post something similar from an article New NIL enforcement targets collectives, deals must serve ‘valid business purpose’ in The Athletic (paywall) - the NIL Go dudes are turning down almost all the collective proposed deals.  Lawyers, who supposedly were paid $750,000,000 litigating the original House settlement, are already drawing up battle lines for the next round of lawsuits - Plaintiffs’ lawyers in House v. NCAA settlement to get roughly $750 million in fees (paywall).

One question I had was what are the consequences if agents simply ignore the NIL Go rules?  Supposedly the payments would be banned but what happens to the player and the school if they simply do it anyway?  Or pay the parents instead of the recruit?  I couldn't find any enforcement mechanisms or clear cut rules for penalties.  Without subpoena power (the fatal flaw of the NCAA Compliance team) to check banking records it's hard to see how this might be enforced.

some quotes:

[quote] The goal is to prevent schools from utilizing booster-driven entities to funnel payments to recruits and transfers as a workaround to the $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap.

Guidance issued Thursday by the College Sports Commission said that “an entity with a business purpose of providing payments or benefits to student-athletes or institutions, rather than providing goods or services to the general public for profit, does not satisfy the valid business purpose requirement set forth in NCAA Rule 22.1.3.”

It then cited as an example a collective that “reach(es) a deal with a student-athlete to make an appearance on behalf of the collective at an event, even if that event is open to the general public, and the collective charges an admission fee (e.g., a golf tournament).” And, “The same collective’s deal with a student-athlete to promote the collective’s sale of merchandise to the public would not satisfy the valid business purpose requirement for the same reason.”

...

In a series of posts on X on Thursday, Dalton K. Forsythe, director of Utah State’s Blue A Collective, criticized NIL Go for technical issues, then said, “We’re hearing from peers across the country: nearly 100 percent of collective-backed NIL deals are being denied, regardless of size or structure.”

He continued, “The College Sports Commission has taken the position that collectives cannot serve a ‘valid business purpose’ — a standard that was never clearly communicated before implementation.”

... (the Collectives have joined forces to fight this.  Here's a statement they issued): 

“Today’s commentary from the College Sports Commission regarding ‘true NIL’ and ‘valid business purposes’ is not only misguided, but deeply dismissive of the collective organizations and the tens of thousands of fans and donors who fuel them,” The Collective Association said in a statement. “Any attempt to delegitimize the role collectives play in today’s collegiate athletics landscape ignores both legal precedent and economic reality.”

[/quote]

Lawsuits, I smell lawsuits.

 

[Hashtag]

A YouTube channel is a legitimate business entity and appearances could be paid as such