01Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

Wait. That's not a joke? He's leaving as one bright spot of young player who will have his turn next year? I get the whole freedom argument, but is there no contractual obligation? You accept scholarship ( and NIL pay) for services rendered for some term. Why is there no enforcement here of this commitment on BOTH sides of the agreement? Maybe the solution here is signing out of high school is four year contract that can't be severed unless breach of contract. And that these players have non competes.

---

Not gonna be enforceable for any CA school.

---

You're right of the contract is an employment contract. But NIL deals are not employment contracts. They're for the right to license a person's name, image, or likeness. If a collective were smart, it would contract with each player for the exclusive use (aside from live game footage rights owned by the sports broadcasters) of the player's name, image, and likeness for four years. That would prevent players from shopping around for a better deal unless they breach the contract, in which case the NIL collective could include a liquidated damages clause, which would include three times the amount of the value promised to the player under the contract.

---

And any player dumb enough to sigh would deserve "slavery" as many here say.

---

Why? If the NIL payment is (1) high enough and (2) guaranteed, it would make sense to sign a NIL deal like this. Think about celebrity endorsements, Jordan endorsed Nike exclusively (pr at least to the exclusion of other athletic brands) and received a significant payment in exchange. This is the same idea.

---

How high would an NIL contract have to be for a serious NFL hopeful have to receive in order to lock into playing on this team for four years?

---

He's not locked in to playing for the team. He's locked in to this NIL collective. This means other NIL collectives can't sign him unless they are willing to pay the liquidated damages. If this becomes standard language (and frankly, I'm surprised it wasn't standard language from the start), then it limits the amount needed to attract players.

As things stand now, the amount is likely determined by a number of factors, including how highly sought after the athlete is. Frankly, that's a valuation model that experts in the field of marketing could answer better than I.

---

If the player is locked into this collective, how would it work for collectives when players move to another team's roster?

---

They can play for other teams, but they're not going to be able to sign another NIL deal. That lessens their incentive to transfer to another team.

The original NIL collective can opt not to feature the athlete in promotions, but it would still have to pay him based on the terms of the original agreement. Of course, the agreement might also include language limiting pay based on performance for the original team (though, from my understanding of the NIL language by the NCAA, pay-for-play is impermissible, so there would have to be another creative way to restrict payment).

Simply put, the idea here is to disincentivize the athlete from transferring by taking away his ability to make more money elsewhere.

---

SLAVERY! Massa wants to own these young athletes!/s

---

Now you're just trolling. There's no owning anyone. The players can still transfer if they want. They just don't get to sign a second NIL deal without compensating the original NIL collective. In general parlance, it's known as a buyout; it's a part of many contracts to prevent a party from terminating the contract early. If you don't get that, then you're about as intelligent as Joke Knownothing.

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

Wait. That's not a joke? He's leaving as one bright spot of young player who will have his turn next year? I get the whole freedom argument, but is there no contractual obligation? You accept scholarship ( and NIL pay) for services rendered for some term. Why is there no enforcement here of this commitment on BOTH sides of the agreement? Maybe the solution here is signing out of high school is four year contract that can't be severed unless breach of contract. And that these players have non competes.

---

Not gonna be enforceable for any CA school.

---

You're right of the contract is an employment contract. But NIL deals are not employment contracts. They're for the right to license a person's name, image, or likeness. If a collective were smart, it would contract with each player for the exclusive use (aside from live game footage rights owned by the sports broadcasters) of the player's name, image, and likeness for four years. That would prevent players from shopping around for a better deal unless they breach the contract, in which case the NIL collective could include a liquidated damages clause, which would include three times the amount of the value promised to the player under the contract.

---

And any player dumb enough to sigh would deserve "slavery" as many here say.

---

Why? If the NIL payment is (1) high enough and (2) guaranteed, it would make sense to sign a NIL deal like this. Think about celebrity endorsements, Jordan endorsed Nike exclusively (pr at least to the exclusion of other athletic brands) and received a significant payment in exchange.

---

---

---

If the player is locked into this collective, how would it work for collectives when players move to another team's roster?

---

They can play for other teams, but they're not going to be able to sign another NIL deal. That lessens their incentive to transfer to another team.

The original NIL collective can opt not to feature the athlete in promotions, but it would still have to pay him based on the terms of the original agreement. Of course, the agreement might also include language limiting pay based on performance for the original team (though, from my understanding of the NIL language by the NCAA, pay-for-play is impermissible, so there would have to be another creative way to restrict payment).

Simply put, the idea here is to disincentivize the athlete from transferring by taking away his ability to make more money elsewhere.

---

SLAVERY! Massa wants to own these young athletes!/s

---

Basketball Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

Wait. That's not a joke? He's leaving as one bright spot of young player who will have his turn next year? I get the whole freedom argument, but is there no contractual obligation? You accept scholarship ( and NIL pay) for services rendered for some term. Why is there no enforcement here of this commitment on BOTH sides of the agreement? Maybe the solution here is signing out of high school is four year contract that can't be severed unless breach of contract. And that these players have non competes.

---

Not gonna be enforceable for any CA school.

---

You're right of the contract is an employment contract. But NIL deals are not employment contracts. They're for the right to license a person's name, image, or likeness. If a collective were smart, it would contract with each player for the exclusive use (aside from live game footage rights owned by the sports broadcasters) of the player's name, image, and likeness for four years. That would prevent players from shopping around for a better deal unless they breach the contract, in which case the NIL collective could include a liquidated damages clause, which would include three times the amount of the value promised to the player under the contract.

---

And any player dumb enough to sigh would deserve "slavery" as many here say.

---

Why? If the NIL payment is (1) high enough and (2) guaranteed, it would make sense to sign a NIL deal like this. Think about celebrity endorsements, Jordan endorsed Nike exclusively (pr at least to the exclusion of other athletic brands) and received a significant payment in exchange.

---

---

---

If the player is locked into this collective, how would it work for collectives when players move to another team's roster?

---

They can play for other teams, but they're not going to be able to sign another NIL deal. That lessens their incentive to transfer to another team.

The original NIL collective can opt not to feature the athlete in promotions, but it would still have to pay him based on the terms of the original agreement. Of course, the agreement might also include language limiting pay based on performance for the original team (though, from my understanding of the NIL language by the NCAA, pay-for-play is impermissible, so there would have to be another creative way to restrict payment).

Simply put, the idea here is to disincentivize the athlete from transferring by taking away his ability to make more money elsewhere.

---

SLAVERY! Massa wants to own these young athletes!/s

---

Typical troll

---

DavisBear said:

---

Kicker Derek Morris to the portal

---