Can someone clarify this question that has been eating at me?
NIL compliance was to specifically exclude pay for play, namely setting up football agreements where a 3rd party was paying a recruit to play at a select university.
I guess the theory being a top athelete has intrinsic Name, Image and Likeness marketing value. Whom ever is paying for said likeness, can purchase that value independent of the kid playing for the University.
In theory this seemed to imply that a kid's profile, social media presence, and likeness has value in the market, shirt off wearing a specific jersey. I.e. RBY once he had achieved his own high profile on social media.
So let's take a new example like Aaron Nagao. If Bob N sees let's say $150k in value. (let's assume the University offered $100k in scholy money) in Aaron for NIL, isn't that offer prohibited from being tied to his wrestling for the Hawks specifically?
Can't an athelete sign NIL deals all over the place and again 'in theory' then sign to play anywhere they want? Likewise if the NIL offer is rescinded once a kid signs elsewhere, isn't this a defacto violation?
It sure seems to me that every kid who 'turns down' an offer seems to prove these deals are absolutely pay to play by their nature, quid pro quo deals tied to a specific school.
Reference - https://www.si.com/fannation/colleg... disallowed by,going to any particular school.
"Two things remain disallowed by NCAA rules: 1) you can't pay a player, and, 2) no quid pro quo.
Players aren't supposed to get any compensation tied for performance, and recruits cannot sign any NIL deal contingent on going to any particular school."
I haven't heard of an NIL deal yet that doesn't seemingly violate these specific tenants. As soon as Aaron was offered by 'Iowa' can he not then accept get the money while still signing with PSU?
The only legit out might be a requirement to appear at a specific location say every Saturday morning for marketing activities.
NIL compliance was to specifically exclude pay for play, namely setting up football agreements where a 3rd party was paying a recruit to play at a select university.
I guess the theory being a top athelete has intrinsic Name, Image and Likeness marketing value. Whom ever is paying for said likeness, can purchase that value independent of the kid playing for the University.
In theory this seemed to imply that a kid's profile, social media presence, and likeness has value in the market, shirt off wearing a specific jersey. I.e. RBY once he had achieved his own high profile on social media.
So let's take a new example like Aaron Nagao. If Bob N sees let's say $150k in value. (let's assume the University offered $100k in scholy money) in Aaron for NIL, isn't that offer prohibited from being tied to his wrestling for the Hawks specifically?
Can't an athelete sign NIL deals all over the place and again 'in theory' then sign to play anywhere they want? Likewise if the NIL offer is rescinded once a kid signs elsewhere, isn't this a defacto violation?
It sure seems to me that every kid who 'turns down' an offer seems to prove these deals are absolutely pay to play by their nature, quid pro quo deals tied to a specific school.
Reference - https://www.si.com/fannation/colleg... disallowed by,going to any particular school.
"Two things remain disallowed by NCAA rules: 1) you can't pay a player, and, 2) no quid pro quo.
Players aren't supposed to get any compensation tied for performance, and recruits cannot sign any NIL deal contingent on going to any particular school."
I haven't heard of an NIL deal yet that doesn't seemingly violate these specific tenants. As soon as Aaron was offered by 'Iowa' can he not then accept get the money while still signing with PSU?
The only legit out might be a requirement to appear at a specific location say every Saturday morning for marketing activities.
Last edited: