Four Days, Four Million

[tdncz]

You are right
We dont have a structure in place because there is no urgency seen by the biggest of the P4. When the P4 decides to fix it (FOR WHAT EVER REASON), there are several proposals I have read that can pass antitrust / employment muster (with varying degrees of tweaks). It is not that legally complicated

[CajunVic]

You are right
We dont have a structure in place because there is no urgency seen by the biggest of the P4. When the P4 decides to fix it (FOR WHAT EVER REASON), there are several proposals I have read that can pass antitrust / employment muster (with varying degrees of tweaks). It is not that legally complicated

you left out the one legal impediment which has created all of this mess - constitutional under the Supreme Court opinion on NIL

[CajunVic]

Dozens of proposals are out there. The big beneficiary teams don't see the need yet but wait till donor fatigue sets in. They will get something done.

My proposal is something like the SAG-AFTRA deal.

I call it TaG-FADE

Turf and Game - Field Advertising Delivery Enterprise.

While TaG-FADE may vary, SAG-AFTRA pays roughly $1000 dollars per day or $4,000 a week while performing multiple days.

Its been through the court system it seems to work. Not an exact model but a framework is there.

Scholarship value part of overall pay.

This story may end up being the climax in the end - keep this up and you will have that book complete and ready to sell - maybe you can donate the proceeds or a portion to Louisiana NIL

[tdncz]

you left out the one legal impediment which has created all of this mess - constitutional under the Supreme Court opinion on NIL

I did NOT.

Although they have jurisdiction in other matters (disputes between states, with foreign ambassadors, etc), the vast majority of cases addressed by SCOTUS focus on two issues: interpreting the US Constitution and deciding disputes involving Federal Law.
Just because SCOTUS acted in the NCAA v Alston case does not mean the case involved a "Constitutional" issue. It was only a Federal Law issue they addressed.
Specifically, the two principal legal issues surrounding NIL are Antitrust and employment law. Although "Employment Law" is both state and Federal, Sherman Antitrust is solely Federal and this is what SCOTUS addressed in Alston.
SCOTUS in the Alston case ruled that the NCAA was violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.
SCOTUS did NOT address ANY "US Constitutional" issues in Alston.
Again there are no "Constitutional" issues surrounding NIL- at least in the Alston case to which you seem to keep referring.

[Duggie35]

The biggest obstacle to fixing the problem is revenue distribution. The P4 (especially the BIG and SEC) want to confiscate the vast majority of TV revenue. An equal distribution of money to all FBS programs would go a long way to resolving a number of issues. Of course, that will never happen.

[CajunVic]

I did NOT.

Although they have jurisdiction in other matters (disputes between states, with foreign ambassadors, etc), the vast majority of cases addressed by SCOTUS focus on two issues: interpreting the US Constitution and deciding disputes involving Federal Law.
Just because SCOTUS acted in the NCAA v Alston case does not mean the case involved a "Constitutional" issue. It was only a Federal Law issue they addressed.
Specifically, the two principal legal issues surrounding NIL are Antitrust and employment law. Although "Employment Law" is both state and Federal, Sherman Antitrust is solely Federal and this is what SCOTUS addressed in Alston.
SCOTUS in the Alston case ruled that the NCAA was violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.
SCOTUS did NOT address ANY "US Constitutional" issues in Alston.
Again there are no "Constitutional" issues surrounding NIL- at least in the Alston case to which you seem to keep referring.

except you step right over the fact that the Sherman Act was the codification of the constitutional right (as it would apply in this case) of athletes to make money - let’s not try and complicate things with big words and legaleses - the simple effect of the Alston case is that no one shall abridge athletes of their constitutional right to make money no matter how you shake it out . . . prove me wrong

[Turbine]

except you step right over the fact that the Sherman Act was the codification of the constitutional right (as it would apply in this case) of athletes to make money - let’s not try and complicate things with big words and legaleses - the simple effect of the Alston case is that no one shall abridge athletes of their constitutional right to make money no matter how you shake it out . . . prove me wrong

The right to make money does not give free reign as to how you make money.

[CajunVic]

The right to make money does not give free reign as to how you make money.

shall not abridge

[Turbine]

shall not abridge

So drug dealers have the right to make money selling drugs?

Laws can limit how money is legally made, on abridge or not on abridge.

[tdncz]

We call that " a distinction without a difference"