Opt out and NIL

I would assume that it depends on the contract.

That being said, an NIL contract that is actually contingent upon playing for a specific school seems like it would raise a ton of red flags for the NCAA.

quote:

---

If you aren’t playing for a school the NCAA is irrelevant.

---

It’s irrelevant for the player. It’s not irrelevant for the school if it turns into impermissible benefits.

ETA: I could be completely wrong, by the way. It just seems like logically the NCAA would still want to prevent the appearance of a true “pay to play,” given their history on this kind of stuff.

I think most of the money is guaranteed but when kids like Stingley start opting out it will change.

quote:

---

TxTiger758

---

created a whole alt account to ask this?

No. I have read the rant for a while but just created an account.

Are you asking how it could be construed as “pay for play” if an athlete’s NIL deal gets yanked as soon as they stop playing for a particular school?

If playing for said school is a condition of the endorsement deal, then it is quite literally pay for play. Again, it may not matter to the player since he’s gone anyway but the university could still get in hot water.

I know it’s against the rules for an NIL deal to be contingent on signing with a particular school - e.g. a company saying “we will give you $XX to sign autographs if you come to LSU.” Although I’m not naive, and I realize these kinds of deals will almost certainly happen under the table.

What I’m not sure of is whether saying “we will give you $XX to sign autographs as long as you continue to play for LSU” would fall under the same rules. I would think that NIL deals would be structured based on a time period, not enrollment status, to be safe.