- 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
re: Livvy Dunne submits formal objection to House settlement
Posted on 4/8/25 at 1:28 am to BigBrod81
Posted on 4/8/25 at 1:28 am to BigBrod81
quote:
That's actually what the topic is. Dunne & the writers of the article brings up NIL yet the hearing was about the upcoming revenue sharing decision. Retroactive payments will occur & there will $2.8 billion dollars put aside to make those payments.
Obviously I'm speaking of the "topic" that Dunne is addressing. Hence why I said that revenue sharing is a different topic. Also, the article states that the 2.8 billion is to be paid to athletes who couldn't make NIL money before 2021. So I'm not sure what that has to do with revenue sharing. Which is why I'm confused that she's complaining about not being compensated, when she's about to be compensated. She thinks she's "worth more" but she's confusing her internet model fame with NIL.
1
Posted on 4/8/25 at 1:55 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
Also, the article states that the 2.8 billion is to be paid to athletes who couldn't make NIL money before 2021. So I'm not sure what that has to do with revenue sharing. Which is why I'm confused that she's complaining about not being compensated, when she's about to be compensated.
It's because both Dunne & the writer of the article talks about NIL when the hearing that Dunne made the objection to retro payments is actually concerning RETROACTIVE REVENUE SHARING PAYMENTS. Both Dunne & the writer doesn't realize this settlement has nothing to do with NIL or retro payments for prior missed NIL opportunities. Dunne made her comments today during a Zoom appearance for a hearing for the House settlement on revenue sharing. The only thing the writer got correct was the dollar amount set aside for the retro revenue share payments ($2.8 billion dollars).
quote:
Estimated NCAA Athlete Revenue Sharing 2025-26:
As part of the House v. NCAA proposed settlement, schools will be allowed to share athletic department revenues with their varsity athletes beginning in 2025. While not finalized, under the proposed revenue sharing model, NCAA I schools will be allowed to directly make payments to their athletes up to to a tentative annual revenue sharing cap of $ 20.5 million per school. The cap is estimated to grow to around $ 30 million per year over the next ten years.
quote:
The total impact above does not include each school’s share of the House v NCAA $ 2.8 billion settlement to current & former athletes. This settlement will be paid by a combination of direct NCAA payments ($ 1.1 billion) and withheld NCAA revenue sharing distributions ($ 1.665 billion) to schools over the next ten years – see the table below for details.
The wildcard here are the NIL Collectives. With the advent of the proposed revenue sharing model, the NCAA has indicated that it will step up enforcement of NIL collectives so that payments to athletes are only for true NIL, and that these entities are not used as vehicles to circumvent (and exceed) the forthcoming $ 20.5 million revenue sharing cap.
The only thing concerning NIL in the settlement is the introduction of a clearinghouse that will monitor NIL deals to determine if the deals meet market value which I see being a problem in itself. Below is a link that does a breakdown of what the settlement is going to look like.
LINK
Posted on 4/8/25 at 2:01 am to 777Tiger
quote:
not skeevy old perv shaming
Glad you cleared that up. Was feeling disrespected!
Posted on 4/8/25 at 2:07 am to BigBrod81
I see, so she just plain doesn't know what she's arguing about. That's pretty, uh... sad.
And I really don't like the idea of retroactive payments of any sort, unless it has to do with money actually earned, that went unpaid. This whole "well if they get it now, I want it, too" argument is just really weak, in my opinion.
Do people who made minimum wage when it was 2 dollars an hour, or whatever, get to demand "damage" payments now that the minimum is 7.25?
And I really don't like the idea of retroactive payments of any sort, unless it has to do with money actually earned, that went unpaid. This whole "well if they get it now, I want it, too" argument is just really weak, in my opinion.
Do people who made minimum wage when it was 2 dollars an hour, or whatever, get to demand "damage" payments now that the minimum is 7.25?
Posted on 4/8/25 at 2:08 am to BigBrod81
Here comes the lawsuits as the settlement is nearing approval.
LINK
quote:
Former NCAA tournament hero Kris Jenkins, in a lawsuit filed last week with the Southern District of New York, is suing the NCAA and six major conferences for limiting athlete pay and restricting his ability to capitalize off his name, image and likeness while he was at Villanova University.
Jenkins' lawsuit alleges that the NCAA and the major conferences, including the Big East, violated federal antitrust laws by impeding the ability of college athletes to make money based on their performances and collective market values. The lawsuit also claims that the defendants "unjustly enriched themselves and their for-profit business partners while causing extensive damage to the student-athletes."
quote:
Per the lawsuit, Jenkins "seeks the compensation that he would have received absent Defendants' unlawful restraints on pay-for-play compensation, a share of game telecast revenue and compensation that he would have received for media broadcast uses of his NIL ('BNIL'), and the compensation that he would have received for his NIL from third parties for use in video games and other opportunities including marketing, sponsorship, social media, branding, promotional, and other NIL deals."
The lawsuit comes nine years after the former Wildcats star hit a buzzer-beater against North Carolina in the 2016 national championship game to seal Villanova's first of two titles in a three-year span.
quote:
Jenkins opted out of the $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement, which was discussed in a hearing in California on Monday, and decided to pursue his own lawsuit, one of a handful filed by former athletes who have said they were denied their NIL rights while they were in school.
LINK
Posted on 4/8/25 at 2:09 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
And I really don't like the idea of retroactive payments of any sort, unless it has to do with money actually earned, that went unpaid. This whole "well if they get it now, I want it, too" argument is just really weak, in my opinion.
It's about to be a shitshow. See my last post.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 2:16 am to BigBrod81
quote:
It's about to be a shitshow. See my last post.
Yep, I saw it. Guy claiming he was denied his NIL "rights" even though it didn't exist. Just another aspect of the Pandora's Box that you knew was coming when we started paying college athletes. People want "fairness" but there was a reason things were as they were before. Me and my dad used to talk about this all the time when we'd hear someone say that it wasn't fair that college kids weren't getting paid.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 2:17 am to BigBrod81
girls gone wild influencer objects something. Jesus christ i hate todays society
Posted on 4/8/25 at 2:22 am to Dr Jan itor
quote:
Jesus christ i hate todays society
"Chasing the bag"
Posted on 4/8/25 at 3:43 am to BigBrod81
She can go to right to hell with Ed O’Bannon
Posted on 4/8/25 at 4:59 am to chalmetteowl
College atheletics is a multi-billion dollar tax exempt buisiness.
This is not a privilege.
Also, publicly funded universities are bound by the first ammendment. Meaning the sports and athletes they represent are bound by the first ammendment. This is why NIL for student athletes attending public universities, which are not employed by the university, is not a privilege, it's a constitutionally protected right under the first ammendment.
This is not a privilege.
Also, publicly funded universities are bound by the first ammendment. Meaning the sports and athletes they represent are bound by the first ammendment. This is why NIL for student athletes attending public universities, which are not employed by the university, is not a privilege, it's a constitutionally protected right under the first ammendment.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 5:25 am to 777Tiger
quote:
no one gives a shite about her if it weren't for skeevy old pervs(not skeevy old perv shaming,) didn't like to stroke it it over the pics of her in skimpy outfits that saturate the internet
This is objectively false. Her popularity on social media is primarily with young females.
Now, you can argue that these young females want men to desire them and that's part of why the follow her, and I would agree, but her money-making ability comes from her female fans. That's who she is targeting with the Vuori ads, etc.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 5:30 am to Tenntig
quote:
Pay her for the points she has scored in the SEC and NCAA championships
You know she is injured, right? When she competed earlier in the season, she did great. The hate for an LSU athlete on an LSU board is bizzare.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:04 am to BigBrod81
quote:
when she got that number (which she declined to state), it was much less than she was worth
According to? Oh…her
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:26 am to chimesstreet
quote:
You know she is injured, right? When she competed earlier in the season, she did great. The hate for an LSU athlete on an LSU board is bizzare
Yep she is a national championship winning LSU athlete. She has done everything the correct way, and has been highly successful. Never a problem or a distraction for her team. She has brought nothing but great publicity to LSU. Yet there are guys on here who are jealous as frick because she makes more money than they do. A bunch of simple minded small individuals on here.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:50 am to BigBrod81
She has a legitimate gripe in the context of the current NIL environment. These girls could all have been whoring out their images just like Dunne.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:50 am to LSUwag
quote:
This is a big reason I no longer care all that much about sports. The greed is ridiculous.
It's not about greed in my opinion. Who would not fight for what money is available? Even you? All these athletes are wanting to maximize their slice of what makes the 'world go round'.
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:51 am to Hurricane2020
quote:
College atheletics is a multi-billion dollar tax exempt buisiness.
This is not a privilege.
Also, publicly funded universities are bound by the first ammendment. Meaning the sports and athletes they represent are bound by the first ammendment. This is why NIL for student athletes attending public universities, which are not employed by the university, is not a privilege, it's a constitutionally protected right under the first ammendment.
The first amendment has nothing to do with protecting right to monetary gain. Nothing about the first amendment applies to any of this, at all. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, and petition. Where in there does this apply?
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:53 am to Jack Crevalle
SHE WORTH IT 
Posted on 4/8/25 at 6:59 am to Innoculum
quote:
but somehow still looks like she's 15
WTF?
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News