- A Stanford University and a Temple University athlete have filed an objection to the pending House v. NCAA settlement ?
- Former players have filed objections to the pending House v. NCAA settlement, and some have been former walk-ons who are objecting to them being excluded from the “broadcast” payments (payments for use of NIL in TV broadcasts that players were denied), with most payouts?ranging from $15k-$280k. As a former walk-on, I understand their position and wholeheartedly believe that walk-ons should not be excluded. With how “broadcast payments” are currently defined, the reason for the payments being tied to an athlete having been on scholarship has no correlation to the reason for the payments, the denial of compensation for use of NIL in TV broadcasts. Walk-ons weren’t/aren’t excluded from any of the TV rights and obligations a scholarship player would have had, additionally, when it came to things such as signing over the use of your NIL for broadcasts, photography, etc., walk-ons sign those rights over as well, I remember sitting in yearly compliance meetings and doing so. This is an issue that I hope gets addressed as we near the final approval of the settlement??
- The Big Ten and SEC are set to meet next month, and while many believe revenue sharing will be the focus of the meeting, I believe the issues regarding the current transfer portal setup will dominate a lot of the conversations as well. I would be on the lookout for what comes of this meeting next month, and how the conversations had here potentially shift things?
That’s a wrap for Vol. 4 of NILove. I hope that you have been enjoying, and that this newsletter has provided education, sparked thought, and started conversation. As always, please like, share, and subscribe.?
Community-Driven Architect
1 个月Love this keep sharing