What is allowed under NIL

[LawoftheWest]

It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about what is allowed under NIL. I think the intent is that college players can receive revenue for use of their name, image and likeness. To me that suggests commercial use, such as advertising, appearance in video games, endorsements and so on.

Yet, it appears that some people are saying that NIL means any alum or other supporter is now free to just give money to the players, without receiving anything tangible in return. That seems contrary to the original stated purpose of NIL.

Does anyone know what the limits of the NIL rules actually are? Does it vary in those states which have passed legislation on the subject?

[vandy05]

I don't have exact knowledge, but my guess is that the law is the law in a state. Perhaps the state may not enforce their law at the expense of their local university, but the law supersedes the NCAA.

I also think that the alum has to receive something of value in return for their money. You can't just give the kid money. But could the player make an a paid appearance at a tee-ball game for a fee? I think they probably could. So that almost makes it akin to handing over cash to the kids.

[VandyPhile]

How about, “here’s $200K to let me use your photo one time.”? “Oh, and here are five more supporters to make the same deal.” That’s where we are going.

[cjdore]

It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about what is allowed under NIL. I think the intent is that college players can receive revenue for use of their name, image and likeness. To me that suggests commercial use, such as advertising, appearance in video games, endorsements and so on.

Yet, it appears that some people are saying that NIL means any alum or other supporter is now free to just give money to the players, without receiving anything tangible in return. That seems contrary to the original stated purpose of NIL.

Does anyone know what the limits of the NIL rules actually are? Does it vary in those states which have passed legislation on the subject?

You hit upon just a few of the reasons that I am against it and think that it will ruin college sports!!

[vandy05]

It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about what is allowed under NIL. I think the intent is that college players can receive revenue for use of their name, image and likeness. To me that suggests commercial use, such as advertising, appearance in video games, endorsements and so on.

Yet, it appears that some people are saying that NIL means any alum or other supporter is now free to just give money to the players, without receiving anything tangible in return. That seems contrary to the original stated purpose of NIL.

Does anyone know what the limits of the NIL rules actually are? Does it vary in those states which have passed legislation on the subject?

You hit upon just a few of the reasons that I am against it and think that it will ruin college sports!!

I'm genuinely asking this question. Why does it ruin college sports for the players to be able to make money? Why is it more fun or interesting for fans for the kids to only get a scholarship? I legitimately don't understand the connection.

[vujoe]

It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about what is allowed under NIL. I think the intent is that college players can receive revenue for use of their name, image and likeness. To me that suggests commercial use, such as advertising, appearance in video games, endorsements and so on.

Yet, it appears that some people are saying that NIL means any alum or other supporter is now free to just give money to the players, without receiving anything tangible in return. That seems contrary to the original stated purpose of NIL.

Does anyone know what the limits of the NIL rules actually are? Does it vary in those states which have passed legislation on the subject?

You hit upon just a few of the reasons that I am against it and think that it will ruin college sports!!

I'm genuinely asking this question. Why does it ruin college sports for the players to be able to make money? Why is it more fun or interesting for fans for the kids to only get a scholarship? I legitimately don't understand the connection.

Because it will become a bidding war. Just plain stupid if there is no limit. Even the pros have a spending cap..

[vujoe]

It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about what is allowed under NIL. I think the intent is that college players can receive revenue for use of their name, image and likeness. To me that suggests commercial use, such as advertising, appearance in video games, endorsements and so on.

Yet, it appears that some people are saying that NIL means any alum or other supporter is now free to just give money to the players, without receiving anything tangible in return. That seems contrary to the original stated purpose of NIL.

Does anyone know what the limits of the NIL rules actually are? Does it vary in those states which have passed legislation on the subject?

You hit upon just a few of the reasons that I am against it and think that it will ruin college sports!!

I'm genuinely asking this question. Why does it ruin college sports for the players to be able to make money? Why is it more fun or interesting for fans for the kids to only get a scholarship? I legitimately don't understand the connection.

Because it will become a bidding war. Just plain stupid if there is no limit. Even the pros have a spending cap..

[commadore]

It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about what is allowed under NIL. I think the intent is that college players can receive revenue for use of their name, image and likeness. To me that suggests commercial use, such as advertising, appearance in video games, endorsements and so on.

Yet, it appears that some people are saying that NIL means any alum or other supporter is now free to just give money to the players, without receiving anything tangible in return. That seems contrary to the original stated purpose of NIL.

Does anyone know what the limits of the NIL rules actually are? Does it vary in those states which have passed legislation on the subject?

You hit upon just a few of the reasons that I am against it and think that it will ruin college sports!!

I'm genuinely asking this question. Why does it ruin college sports for the players to be able to make money? Why is it more fun or interesting for fans for the kids to only get a scholarship? I legitimately don't understand the connection.

Your Alabamas, Texas, Florida, tOSU and similar schools with huge fan bases and lots of money will basically buy a team while the Schools like Vandwrbilt, Mississippi, Arkansas and others will be relegated to basically division 2 status. Think we will ever win a battle against tennessee, Notre Dame, or Alabama? Doubtful.

[vandy05]

You hit upon just a few of the reasons that I am against it and think that it will ruin college sports!!

I'm genuinely asking this question. Why does it ruin college sports for the players to be able to make money? Why is it more fun or interesting for fans for the kids to only get a scholarship? I legitimately don't understand the connection.

Your Alabamas, Texas, Florida, tOSU and similar schools with huge fan bases and lots of money will basically buy a team while the Schools like Vandwrbilt, Mississippi, Arkansas and others will be relegated to basically division 2 status. Think we will ever win a battle against tennessee, Notre Dame, or Alabama? Doubtful.

Got it, okay. That seems more like a, "its going to be bad for Vanderbilt" as opposed to a "it will ruin college sports" thing, but point taken nonetheless.

[commadore]

I'm genuinely asking this question. Why does it ruin college sports for the players to be able to make money? Why is it more fun or interesting for fans for the kids to only get a scholarship? I legitimately don't understand the connection.

Your Alabamas, Texas, Florida, tOSU and similar schools with huge fan bases and lots of money will basically buy a team while the Schools like Vandwrbilt, Mississippi, Arkansas and others will be relegated to basically division 2 status. Think we will ever win a battle against tennessee, Notre Dame, or Alabama? Doubtful.

Got it, okay. That seems more like a, "its going to be bad for Vanderbilt" as opposed to a "it will ruin college sports" thing, but point taken nonetheless.

It basically means the rich will be super rich and the small and medium teams (KY for FB, USC, MSU, Ole Miss as well as OVC schools, Sun Belt schools, Ivy League, etc) will suffer.

[VUinFL]

You hit upon just a few of the reasons that I am against it and think that it will ruin college sports!!

I'm genuinely asking this question. Why does it ruin college sports for the players to be able to make money? Why is it more fun or interesting for fans for the kids to only get a scholarship? I legitimately don't understand the connection.

Your Alabamas, Texas, Florida, tOSU and similar schools with huge fan bases and lots of money will basically buy a team while the Schools like Vandwrbilt, Mississippi, Arkansas and others will be relegated to basically division 2 status. Think we will ever win a battle against tennessee, Notre Dame, or Alabama? Doubtful.

Wasn't that the case before the NIL? At least it's out in the open now - we'll know what companies / individuals are "paying" players which may change spending habits, players will be paying taxes, all above board.

[VandyPhile]

I'm genuinely asking this question. Why does it ruin college sports for the players to be able to make money? Why is it more fun or interesting for fans for the kids to only get a scholarship? I legitimately don't understand the connection.

Your Alabamas, Texas, Florida, tOSU and similar schools with huge fan bases and lots of money will basically buy a team while the Schools like Vandwrbilt, Mississippi, Arkansas and others will be relegated to basically division 2 status. Think we will ever win a battle against tennessee, Notre Dame, or Alabama? Doubtful.

Wasn't that the case before the NIL? At least it's out in the open now - we'll know what companies / individuals are "paying" players which may change spending habits, players will be paying taxes, all above board.

How will we know who is paying? Backer Bob just paid an athlete $200K so he can have an “advertisement “ picture of the prospect in the back of his drawer. How is that visible?

Maybe the IRS will know? Maybe even they won’t. You and I certainly won’t.

It becomes the biggest bankroll pros against the amateurs. Student athletes against the Steelers. Not competitive, not fun, not fair, not entertaining.

[dorepleganger]

I'm genuinely asking this question. Why does it ruin college sports for the players to be able to make money? Why is it more fun or interesting for fans for the kids to only get a scholarship? I legitimately don't understand the connection.

Your Alabamas, Texas, Florida, tOSU and similar schools with huge fan bases and lots of money will basically buy a team while the Schools like Vandwrbilt, Mississippi, Arkansas and others will be relegated to basically division 2 status. Think we will ever win a battle against tennessee, Notre Dame, or Alabama? Doubtful.

Wasn't that the case before the NIL? At least it's out in the open now - we'll know what companies / individuals are "paying" players which may change spending habits, players will be paying taxes, all above board.

I go back to the "reputational risk" issue I raised a few months ago with this.

Boosters spending their money and having the university bear the reputational risk of a bad investment is one thing.

Boosters spending money and having their business bear the reputational risk of a bad investment is another consideration altogether.

There are real business risks associated with aligning with teenagers and young adults. Also, not everyone is a sports fan or a fan of the booster's university. A car dealer in Birmingham, for instance, needs to sell cars to more than just Alabama fans.

[BILTMORE]

Your Alabamas, Texas, Florida, tOSU and similar schools with huge fan bases and lots of money will basically buy a team while the Schools like Vandwrbilt, Mississippi, Arkansas and others will be relegated to basically division 2 status. Think we will ever win a battle against tennessee, Notre Dame, or Alabama? Doubtful.

Wasn't that the case before the NIL? At least it's out in the open now - we'll know what companies / individuals are "paying" players which may change spending habits, players will be paying taxes, all above board.

I go back to the "reputational risk" issue I raised a few months ago with this.

Boosters spending their money and having the university bear the reputational risk of a bad investment is one thing.

Boosters spending money and having their business bear the reputational risk of a bad investment is another consideration altogether.

There are real business risks associated with aligning with teenagers and young adults. Also, not everyone is a sports fan or a fan of the booster's university. A car dealer in Birmingham, for instance, needs to sell cars to more than just Alabama fans.

Well put.
I work at an ad agency that handles the marketing for regional/local brands all across the country that have similar reach to your car dealer example.

Many of them are abuzz about NIL. We came to the same conclusion. The unpredictability of any of these college athletes made us all wary of hitching the brand to an 18 year old who's getting his first, unchaperoned taste of freedom, sex, alcohol and possibly illegal drugs. What could go right?
Bigger national brands can afford to sponsor kids all over the country which spreads out their risk. But our guys really can't.

One idea we DID have though was to pay athletes for tons of autographed gear and give the items away for various promotions - so you're playing the game by attaching yourself to the team as a whole, but you're not vulnerable to getting burned by one horrible decision by one high-dollar "spokesman".

[MikenNashville]

NIL could have been beneficial to many student athletes at universities like Vanderbilt if it had been implemented with limitations/regulations.

Basically the NCAA practiced self-castration by not addressing NIL years ago. Among other things they could have come up with an NIL framework that could have benefited the players more than just the cash.

1 Recruiting- now, as stated before the "Alabamas, Clemsons, Ohio States, etc" will just promise recruits the best NIL deals. Something like "Johnny, well you know last year five star recruit Jimmy Superstar got a $25,000 appearance fee at the local whatever business right out of high school. Now I can't promise specific sums of money but I can promise our boosters and fan base are all in, are you all in Johnny?”

IMO what the NCAA should have done was open NIL to all upper class men and graduates but ban NIL to all freshman, maybe all under class men. To paraphrase Mark Twain, when I was younger my parents were so ignorant I couldn’t stand them but when I got to be 21 I was astonished at how much they had learned. As I stated in an earlier thread this could keep borderline pro prospects in school long enough to get a degree for the future while financially rewarding them at the same time.

2 The framework could have limited NIL to things like the aforementioned autographed items, fees for an NCAA Football video game, trading cards etc, or maybe put a cap on the amount an athlete could receive in a given year.

What we will get is a patchwork of deals which will include all sorts of mischief and absurdity.

[FayetteDore]

All I know about NIL is what I read on here, including the media articles that Auric, Brent, Roanoke and others link to. I'm no expert. But from what I read, including the separate post about Emmert's interview, NIL is going to be a patchwork of laws, regulations and guidelines that widely vary across the country, states and conferences.

As I understand it, there are no reporting requirements (so everything is NOT likely to be out in the open).

I agree with an earlier poster: there should have been some NCAA regulatory framework requiring all deals with players to be handled through the school (probably some new marketing unit within the athletic department), much the way various promotional deals with coaches used to be handled. There would be some level of accountability, oversight and responsibility.

To be sure, I'm NOT opposed to college players getting paid. And not to get too Coffee Shop-ish but without some level of regulation and uniformity, I fear the impact will be akin to the Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling, unleashing a cascading flow of dark money that will upend college football as we know it -- and not in a way that will be good for Vanderbilt.

[OldDude]

Can't wait until some athlete promotes a sports bar, liquor store, cannabis shop or strip joint. Now that would be entertainment !

[VandyPhile]

Wasn't that the case before the NIL? At least it's out in the open now - we'll know what companies / individuals are "paying" players which may change spending habits, players will be paying taxes, all above board.

I go back to the "reputational risk" issue I raised a few months ago with this.

Boosters spending their money and having the university bear the reputational risk of a bad investment is one thing.

Boosters spending money and having their business bear the reputational risk of a bad investment is another consideration altogether.



There are real business risks associated with aligning with teenagers and young adults. Also, not everyone is a sports fan or a fan of the booster's university. A car dealer in Birmingham, for instance, needs to sell cars to more than just Alabama fans.

Well put.
I work at an ad agency that handles the marketing for regional/local brands all across the country that have similar reach to your car dealer example.

Many of them are abuzz about NIL. We came to the same conclusion. The unpredictability of any of these college athletes made us all wary of hitching the brand to an 18 year old who's getting his first, unchaperoned taste of freedom, sex, alcohol and possibly illegal drugs. What could go right?
Bigger national brands can afford to sponsor kids all over the country which spreads out their risk. But our guys really can't.

One idea we DID have though was to pay athletes for tons of autographed gear and give the items away for various promotions - so you're playing the game by attaching yourself to the team as a whole, but you're not vulnerable to getting burned by one horrible decision by one high-dollar "spokesman".

I’m sure you are correct that there will be many who will evaluate this strictly from a logical business standpoint. But, I’m pretty certain that there will be a significant number who will only approach it as a fan, “who do we have to buy to get a natty and how big of a check do I need to write?” Their business may never even be publicly tied to any particular player.

[BILTMORE]

I go back to the "reputational risk" issue I raised a few months ago with this.

Boosters spending their money and having the university bear the reputational risk of a bad investment is one thing.

Boosters spending money and having their business bear the reputational risk of a bad investment is another consideration altogether.



There are real business risks associated with aligning with teenagers and young adults. Also, not everyone is a sports fan or a fan of the booster's university. A car dealer in Birmingham, for instance, needs to sell cars to more than just Alabama fans.

Well put.
I work at an ad agency that handles the marketing for regional/local brands all across the country that have similar reach to your car dealer example.

Many of them are abuzz about NIL. We came to the same conclusion. The unpredictability of any of these college athletes made us all wary of hitching the brand to an 18 year old who's getting his first, unchaperoned taste of freedom, sex, alcohol and possibly illegal drugs. What could go right?
Bigger national brands can afford to sponsor kids all over the country which spreads out their risk. But our guys really can't.

One idea we DID have though was to pay athletes for tons of autographed gear and give the items away for various promotions - so you're playing the game by attaching yourself to the team as a whole, but you're not vulnerable to getting burned by one horrible decision by one high-dollar "spokesman".

I’m sure you are correct that there will be many who will evaluate this strictly from a logical business standpoint. But, I’m pretty certain that there will be a significant number who will only approach it as a fan, “who do we have to buy to get a natty and how big of a check do I need to write?” Their business may never even be publicly tied to any particular player.

Oh for sure. Totally agree - just adding perspective.