- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Sign a NIL deal with the University?
Posted on 11/25/25 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 11/25/25 at 3:36 pm
Why can’t a college/university require a scholarship athlete to sign a NIL agreement with the school? You will play a sport, promote the school with your NIL, promote university affiliated businesses, get compensation, all under a binding contract, including the inability to play for or promote any other school. Very similar to musicians who sign contracts with record labels.
5
Posted on 11/25/25 at 3:38 pm to savecf101
You're asking why schools can't make their players employees?
Posted on 11/25/25 at 3:39 pm to savecf101
Sounds like a great way to run off every high profile recruit
Posted on 11/25/25 at 3:43 pm to LSBoosie
"Sign a NIL deal with the University?"
No. They are under contract. Garth Brooks is not an employee of Sony.
No. They are under contract. Garth Brooks is not an employee of Sony.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 3:54 pm to savecf101
Because it’s already clown show enough.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 4:01 pm to savecf101
quote:
"Sign a NIL deal with the University?"
No. They are under contract. Garth Brooks is not an employee of Sony.
I’m confused. Why would they need to sign an NIL deal with the university? So the university can use their name and image? You know they already do that right. You said they wouldn’t be able to play for or promote another school as if that’s something that they do hahaha
Posted on 11/25/25 at 4:08 pm to savecf101
quote:
Why can’t a college/university require a scholarship athlete to sign a NIL agreement with the school?
They can! As of the 2025-2026 academic year, direct institutional NIL deals count toward the revenue sharing cap.
quote:
You will play a sport, promote the school with your NIL, promote university affiliated businesses, get compensation, all under a binding contract, including the inability to play for or promote any other school.
This part remains to be seen. I’ve searched for details about what’s allowed under rev share agreements, and right now those details are pretty sparse.
That being said, it would take enforcement at the conference or NCAA level to actually prevent players from leaving. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that schools can put whatever they want into the agreements. It becomes a market scenario where the player has to decide whether the juice is worth the squeeze.
If school A says you can’t play anywhere else ever while school B says you just have to stay through the end of the season, school A better be offering a lot more money or have a lot more upside in some other way. But since all schools are subject to the cap, it’s not like you can just buy exclusivity for your entire roster unless every other school is doing it. And if every school does it, they’re probably just going to get hit with another antitrust lawsuit.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 4:25 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
I’m confused. Why would they need to sign an NIL deal with the university? So the university can use their name and image? You know they already do that right. You said they wouldn’t be able to play for or promote another school as if that’s something that they do hahaha
Universities’ use of players’ NIL was a major component of the House lawsuit. That’s a big part of what revenue sharing seeks to address.
There aren’t a lot of details on rev share agreements yet, but I did find this CBS Sports article from January. CBS got their hands on four NIL/rev share agreements from Big 10, Big 12, and SEC schools at the time. The findings are pretty interesting. Particularly:
quote:
The Big 12 school's agreement is the most straightforward. The player signed two agreements regarding his NIL rights:
- One is with the school's collective through the NIL platform Opendorse, covering compensation through June.
- The second kicks in afterward -- an agreement between the athlete and the school itself, co-signed by the school's athletic director. The latter is what the House settlement allows schools to provide.
quote:
Both the aforementioned Big Ten and Big 12 agreements include clauses on:
- Enrollment requirements.
- Termination if the athlete leaves the school, the team, or enters the transfer portal.
quote:
Compensation amounts are laid out in agreements but are not fixed. The Big Ten school's contract states that the school can adjust a player's payout based on marketability. For example:
- Winning the Heisman Trophy would increase a player's value.
- Reduced playing time would decrease it.
Buyout provisions exist as well. An NIL agent told CBS Sports that if a player transfers, they would seek to have the new school cover the remainder of what is owed to the original school.
This was while the House settlement was still pending approval, and the deals were apparently contingent on the final version of the settlement. So some of those provisions may have changed once the settlement became final and enforcement mechanisms were put in place. But OP isn’t crazy to ask the question considering we are in uncharted waters.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 4:28 pm to lostinbr
So what is the difference between rev-share and what the OP is proposing?
Posted on 11/25/25 at 4:42 pm to LSBoosie
Revenue sharing may or may not require a contract agreement. NIL would. A multi-year NIL, binding to both parties, using revenue sharing and other money sources could greatly impact the ability for a player to move every year. He is under a signed contract.
Again, much like a musician to a record label. You sign a five year agreement with Sony. You are not able to go record with Warner three years down the road. You must finish the five years or get a release from your current contract. That will likely not happen without a buyout.
Again, much like a musician to a record label. You sign a five year agreement with Sony. You are not able to go record with Warner three years down the road. You must finish the five years or get a release from your current contract. That will likely not happen without a buyout.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 4:58 pm to Pelican fan99
"Sounds like a great way to run off every high profile recruit"
The University must offer value. A combination of money, development exposure, etc. If a recruit is not interested because he wants to move over and over, then so be it. I would not want him on my team at that point. anyway.
We have to start somewhere to turn this mess around. Kids with no sense of loyalty, over blown ideas of their ability, and greed can't keep running the show.
The University must offer value. A combination of money, development exposure, etc. If a recruit is not interested because he wants to move over and over, then so be it. I would not want him on my team at that point. anyway.
We have to start somewhere to turn this mess around. Kids with no sense of loyalty, over blown ideas of their ability, and greed can't keep running the show.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 5:10 pm to savecf101
I guess a school could require that, but who would be the first to do it knowing it would discourage some recruits?
At this point, the NCAA needs to bring back the rule that if you transfer, you sit out a year. That way, it at least somewhat tempers the school hoping and helps coaches with at least some minimal stability.
At this point, the NCAA needs to bring back the rule that if you transfer, you sit out a year. That way, it at least somewhat tempers the school hoping and helps coaches with at least some minimal stability.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 5:15 pm to ragincajun03
The NCAA has no ability to legally enforce any rule that limits a person to make money or move. The law is clear. You can have such limits in a binding contract signed by the individual, though.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 5:22 pm to lostinbr
"If school A says you can’t play anywhere else ever while school B says you just have to stay through the end of the season, school A better be offering a lot more money or have a lot more upside in some other way. But since all schools are subject to the cap, it’s not like you can just buy exclusivity for your entire roster unless every other school is doing it. And if every school does it, they’re probably just going to get hit with another antitrust lawsuit."
If a group of schools (let's say 60 schools) agreed to use the same contract for its players, that would leave 205 other schools as a playing alternative for any player not wanting to sign the contract. Is that 60 member collective still subject to antitrust?
If a group of schools (let's say 60 schools) agreed to use the same contract for its players, that would leave 205 other schools as a playing alternative for any player not wanting to sign the contract. Is that 60 member collective still subject to antitrust?
Posted on 11/25/25 at 5:58 pm to savecf101
quote:
The NCAA has no ability to legally enforce any rule that limits a person to make money or move. The law is clear.
You are correct, and that's not a good thing.
Guess I'll go back to watching NFL more than college. A shame, as college football, along with college baseball, was my favorite sport to watch.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 6:01 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
So what is the difference between rev-share and what the OP is proposing?
I would describe what OP is proposing as a specific set of contractual terms within the rev share agreement.
It comes down to whether or not schools can get away with adding those terms in their rev share agreements. I think there are three main factors at play here:
1. NCAA/conference rules.
2. Legality.
3. Willingness of athletes to accept those terms.
I don’t think #1 is an issue based on everything I’ve read. Direct institutional rev share is explicit pay-for-play. #2 likely depends on specific state laws. It also depends on whether schools are colluding to impose specific terms.
#3 is unknown, I think. Will athletes just go somewhere else that isn’t imposing those terms? Maybe. Depends on what everyone else is offering. We’re in the Wild West and everyone is still figuring it out.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 6:12 pm to savecf101
quote:
If a group of schools (let's say 60 schools) agreed to use the same contract for its players, that would leave 205 other schools as a playing alternative for any player not wanting to sign the contract. Is that 60 member collective still subject to antitrust?
I’m not going to pretend to be an expert in antitrust law. But if all the power conferences colluded and imposed the same terms (which include transfer restrictions) then I’d say there’s a risk considering the way things have played out over the past few years.
It’s one thing if each conference implements the rules independently, but any agreement between the power conferences is basically an agreement between everyone at the top level of the sport. It’s certainly better than something imposed at the NCAA level, but it’s still a risk.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the power conferences wouldn’t have to require specific contract language to accomplish this goal. They could simply reimplement the year-in-residence requirement for transfers to (or between) their member schools. That would probably be cleaner, IMO.
This post was edited on 11/25/25 at 6:13 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News