Again...not at all
For what you believe can happen to be possible other things that are unlikely have to happen first. It's like saying Pittsburgh isn't prepared for a hurricane if they end up on the coast.
Your faith is blind not justified.
USC game
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
For what you believe can happen to be possible other things that are unlikely have to happen first. It's like saying Pittsburgh isn't prepared for a hurricane if they end up on the coast.
Your faith is blind not justified.
I’ve researched your statement that professional sports leagues restrict NIL, and I’ve been unable to confirm that. Can you point me in the right direction with a citation?
You need to work on your research skills.
--------------------------------
In brief: sponsorship and image rights of professional athletes in USA
A brief look at sponsorship and image rights of professional athletes in USA, covering image rights, commercialisation and protection of image rights, restrictions and more.
Are there any restrictions on sponsorship, advertising or marketing in professional sport?
Restrictions on sponsorship, advertising and marketing in professional sports vary by league. For example, MLB recently permitted teams to sell sponsorship patches on in-game uniforms and helmets, but the league prohibited sponsorship from categories such as alcohol and betting, among other things. On the other hand, the National Basketball Association (NBA) has official sponsorships with both FanDuel and DraftKings in the sports-betting industry. And NASCAR allows for alcohol brand sponsorships on cars that compete in races.
Restrictions may be imposed by leagues unilaterally or may be imposed by agreement among the league and players. In some instances, banned sponsorship categories are agreed upon in the respective collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The NBA, for example, removed cannabis as a banned sponsorship category after an agreement with the NBA Players Association in the 2023 CBA. In the NFL, however, the league maintains more control over banned sponsorship categories.
Restrictions on sponsorship categories often change over time. For example, the NFL recently relaxed its internal rules that strictly limited what types of alcohol brands athletes and teams could partner with. These changes to limitations may follow the evolving legality of the sponsorship category at issue. For example, as cannabis and sports betting have started to become legalised throughout the United States, professional leagues have started to allow teams and athletes to enter into endorsement contracts with brands within these categories.
Teams and players may also be restricted from certain sponsorship agreements based on an exclusivity restriction. If a team grants sponsorship exclusivity to a certain brand, their contractual arrangement often makes that brand the only company in a given industry allowed to partner with the team (eg, the exclusive car sponsor of a team). One challenge leagues, teams and athletes face is how to navigate competing sponsorships, where, for example, a team has an exclusive sponsorship with one brand while the relevant league or association enters into an agreement with a competing brand. In this situation, the team will generally not be considered in violation of their exclusivity arrangement with the brand in question, unless the contract stipulates exclusivity across team and league layers.
-----------------------------------
I'm not quite sure how this isn't known. Leagues can simply lay out that certain deals are off-limits. Leagues can negotiate limits ... for teams, and for players ... the latter via collective bargaining. Teams could negotiate individual limits with players, if they wanted.
This is likely to come more into play as part of the process of revenue-sharing and acknowledgement of the employer/employee relationship within college athletics. There will be concessions negotiated and these collectives will be limited or restricted in some fashion.
Give it time ... this is the destructive phase of the former model, and the emergence of the seeds of a new model ... so there's currently chaos. The next iteration of the new model will come into focus in fits and spurts. But unless there's another shockwave that disrupts what's forming, there will be some wrangling of the NIL process within the new framework.
Don't need to, sport. I'm well-versed in this, dating back to my law school days when my Sports and the Law class paper dealt with various antitrust aspects of league formation and operation. Labor aspects were ancillary to my research, but I still educated myself on them, regardless. Further knowledge in this particular area was obtained through a later IP class. Since that time I've kept abreast of developments. Not to mention, many aspects of this are just basic contract law principles.
Last edited:
Guessing my 'law school days" were better--or maybe just more recent. Read what you wrote again--if you're still confused let me know.
What I "copied and pasted" illustrates that NIL rights can be restricted ... and that can be done through mutual agreement between the parties (or their collective representation). You claimed this wasn't the case. You, once again, have no argument, but you'll insist you're correct, with no supporting evidence. It's what you do. You can't let go. And you can't present an argument ... you'll just keep repeating your claim, unable to back it. No one believes you attended law school. Stick to obsessing about your WVU fail from last year.
I wasn't wrong last year about WVU--it was smoke and mirrors as we continue to see
And I don't care what anyone thinks--unlike you
My claim is correct because you're using something that doesn't exist. Again, you can't say NIL can be restrictive by pretending 800 other things happen first that aren't even possible in collegiate athletics.
NIL can not be restricted.
You were and will always be wrong about WVU ... and that eats at you so much that you just can't let it go even now. It's a crazy obsession.
The topic was restrictions of NIL amongst professional sports leagues. LMTLION claimed he researched it and couldn't find any restrictions. YOU claimed it was all in my imagination. I presented evidence of said restrictions via a well-respected law firm.
If you were a reasonable human, interested in the truth, once confronted with the evidence that you were wrong that pro sports league don't and can't restrict NIL, you would write "I'm sorry, PurposePitch ... I was wrong ... it's not just in your imagination ... pro sports leagues can restrict NIL."
Instead, you've been acting like a ridiculous baby ever since. Seems to be a pattern.
Last edited:
OK, but there’s no regulatory framework in professional sports that limits or caps NIL compensation dollars for athletes. That is the concern with the college system of creating a few haves and a vast majority of have nots. That is what I looked up, and that is Lando’s concern as well. Lando was accurate on this topic.You need to work on your research skills.
--------------------------------
In brief: sponsorship and image rights of professional athletes in USA
A brief look at sponsorship and image rights of professional athletes in USA, covering image rights, commercialisation and protection of image rights, restrictions and more.www.lexology.com
Are there any restrictions on sponsorship, advertising or marketing in professional sport?
Restrictions on sponsorship, advertising and marketing in professional sports vary by league. For example, MLB recently permitted teams to sell sponsorship patches on in-game uniforms and helmets, but the league prohibited sponsorship from categories such as alcohol and betting, among other things. On the other hand, the National Basketball Association (NBA) has official sponsorships with both FanDuel and DraftKings in the sports-betting industry. And NASCAR allows for alcohol brand sponsorships on cars that compete in races.
Restrictions may be imposed by leagues unilaterally or may be imposed by agreement among the league and players. In some instances, banned sponsorship categories are agreed upon in the respective collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The NBA, for example, removed cannabis as a banned sponsorship category after an agreement with the NBA Players Association in the 2023 CBA. In the NFL, however, the league maintains more control over banned sponsorship categories.
Restrictions on sponsorship categories often change over time. For example, the NFL recently relaxed its internal rules that strictly limited what types of alcohol brands athletes and teams could partner with. These changes to limitations may follow the evolving legality of the sponsorship category at issue. For example, as cannabis and sports betting have started to become legalised throughout the United States, professional leagues have started to allow teams and athletes to enter into endorsement contracts with brands within these categories.
Teams and players may also be restricted from certain sponsorship agreements based on an exclusivity restriction. If a team grants sponsorship exclusivity to a certain brand, their contractual arrangement often makes that brand the only company in a given industry allowed to partner with the team (eg, the exclusive car sponsor of a team). One challenge leagues, teams and athletes face is how to navigate competing sponsorships, where, for example, a team has an exclusive sponsorship with one brand while the relevant league or association enters into an agreement with a competing brand. In this situation, the team will generally not be considered in violation of their exclusivity arrangement with the brand in question, unless the contract stipulates exclusivity across team and league layers.
-----------------------------------
I'm not quite sure how this isn't known. Leagues can simply lay out that certain deals are off-limits. Leagues can negotiate limits ... for teams, and for players ... the latter via collective bargaining. Teams could negotiate individual limits with players, if they wanted.
This is likely to come more into play as part of the process of revenue-sharing and acknowledgement of the employer/employee relationship within college athletics. There will be concessions negotiated and these collectives will be limited or restricted in some fashion.
Give it time ... this is the destructive phase of the former model, and the emergence of the seeds of a new model ... so there's currently chaos. The next iteration of the new model will come into focus in fits and spurts. But unless there's another shockwave that disrupts what's forming, there will be some wrangling of the NIL process within the new framework.
The issue is whether there can be restrictions on NIL ... and there can be. And there is. And I saw you make this false claim numerous times in the past, and have let you know you are incorrect on the matter. Lando was incorrect on this matter, as well.
And you feigned being unable to find this information as a part of your "argument."
Of course they can put limits on NIL compensation if the parties agree to it, and there are a variety of ways to tackle that issue, depending on the parties involved in the negotiation (such as a union resulting from a progression of the employer/employee relationship in college sports, etc.) and the concessions elsewhere (salaries, revenue sharing. These limits could be direct or indirect (by managing the structure and usage of collectives, etc.). Those are all details that will come out in the wash, depending on how it all shakes out.
The salient point being that this isn't some area that can't be regulated, and is a runaway train that will only exacerbate the existence and extent of the haves and the have-nots.
Not incorrect--we're discussing reality not your creation of something that doesn't exist.
And you still rambling nonsense about WVU being good last year. See who they beat. Everything I've said about them is true. It's okay for you to acknowledge that. The only thing I was wrong about was I said it was more likely they'd win 3 than 8. They won 8 because multiple teams on their schedule completely fell apart. Not because they were good. See Kansas this year.
The courts have already ruled that you are incorrect, and professional sports leagues do not, and legally cannot, regulate the amount of dollars an athlete can make on endorsements. Lando is absolutely right that your citation is your very imagination. You lost this argument .
That is not what the courts ruled. And I provided the citation which directly contradicts your statement, and his, that NIL can not be restricted. See ... when there are explicit restrictions listed on NIL, then there can be restrictions. That's how words, and logic, work.
Yours is a failure to understand the topic at its base level.
At this point, you're pathological ...
"NIL can't be restricted!"
"Yes it can."
"No, it can't!"
Of course it can ... and is.
"Oh, yeah ... show me ... I can't find it!"
"Here it is ... here are restrictions."
"Yeah, those are restrictions ... so, like I said, it can't be restricted ... I was right!"
WTactualF?!?
Last edited:
There can be restrictions on NIL. That is a demonstrable truth. That was actually and verifiably demonstrated, for you. You were wrong. Every time we've disagreed, you've been proven incorrect. You've never once manned up and admitted it, though.
I wasn't even around for your initial WVU faux pas, but it's crazy that you're still hanging on to it so long after you screwed up. It's filtered into almost everything you say on this board at this point. You just can't let things go and it makes you look worse, not better. You're not saving face by refusing to admit your mistake.
Are we discussing college football and NIL? Yes or no?
I didn't screw up--you're rambling nonsense about it is the only reason it's being discussed now. I don't need to save anything. Facts are facts.
Oh boy, another intriguing Lando vs. PurposePitch thread. Said no one ever.
I think most kids want to win a title. The question is if they want that more than they want money.
And do NFL teams care if they skip a playoff game...
But, yes, I think ultimately most play to win titles and they're only skip bowl games because it's "just for fun"
I don't see players skipping playoff games. I can see top players skipping the remainder of a bad season or if a team has 4 losses and is eliminated, like the last month or whatever.
We were discussing whether NIL can be restricted. It can. Pro. College. High school. Preschool. You were entirely incorrect.
Agreed. I mean, now that the lines have been crossed, the argument for a certified high-draft pick skipping out on regular season games is exactly the same as for him passing on a non-playoff bowl game
The latter has become a routine scenario in recent years, and with the advent of the 12-team playoff it's going to get even more routine...and likely extend itself to the regular season.
Read it again...we're discussing NIL related to college football and what restrictions can exist. I'm not the one that's wrong and you know it
So...with a 12 team playoff more teams are still able to get in longer. With a 4 team playoff most kids could quit early. It's part if the reason the playoff should go to 24 like FCS
Dude. You said NIL can't be restricted. It can. In college (and elsewhere). Very simple. So simple even you can get it. You're entirely wrong. Your statement that NIL can't be restricted is verifiably and demonstrably wrong. You have been presented with the evidence that proves this. You've presented absolutely nothing to dispute that evidence. You just keep saying "you're wrong."
Good lord.
Again you're wrong and you believe that's all that's being said because you can't accept reality.
Since you've provided absolutely nothing to support your incorrect view (par for the course for you, on every subject ... just keep repeating the same unsupported fallacious statement), everyone can rest assured that you're wrong.
NIL isn't salary, sparky. So, no.
Weren't you the guy who wasn't even aware that pro sports leagues could restrict NIL? To the point where you had to do independent research and couldn't even handle that ... claiming you came up empty even though proof was a basic google search away?
Please take this oppty to remember that CFB has never been more popular and none of this will negatively impact the popularity of and interest in CFB. 🙄
Pro Leagues and the NCAA do not have the legal ability in the United States to set compensation limits for athletes. That was the conversation. You lose.
That wasn't the conversation, but you're even wrong about that goalpost-moving statement. What you suggested can be handled, contractually. And my original commentary on this topic even covered this. This must be what it feels like to try to teach quantum physics to 4-year-olds.
NFL players are contractually bound to play in playoff games.
The NCAA has a goofy rule that only obligates a player for the academic (ha ha) semester that ended shortly prior to the bowl game.
And we've never seen anyone skip a playoff game because they actually mean something
