By its very nature a contract is an arms length agreement between two entities and doesn't have to constitute a employer/employee relationship. I'm pretty much in the boat that it would be exceedingly easy to find a politician that is as dumb as a box of rocks, but I doubt I could even find one that is stupid enough to believe that NIL contracts are anything more than a monetary inducement to Player X to go play for University Y. The States made these rules to give Ole State U a leg up on that State up North's NIL, and for no other reason. That is why there is this arms race among State's to get do one better than the State next door. I think the chances of the State ever getting involved in any kind of "investigation" of this sort is somewhere between slim and none, and slim is warming up his truck to leave town.
Writing contracts that have verbiage in them that directly defy state law would make the contracts null and void from the jump. On top of just being incredibly stupid. Whether you have investigations and prosecutions or not, you’d have tons of lawsuits for invalid contracts.
Do you believe that would be an illegal contract between Wanne and me....even if he was a player at State U? It was just a silly example. I'll do better: "If University Y is invited to post-season play, then NIL X will remunerate Player Z an additional sum of 1/13 of funds paid during the 2024 season if Player Z participates in post-season play to his full ability for consideration of the additional NIL value (ha-ha) earned during post-season play. If for any reason, Player Z is unable to participate in post-season play, no additional remuneration will be paid." I like my contracts to be positively structured rather than punitive!
The whole concept of "NIL" is exceedingly stupid...I'm just taking that to the logically stupid conclusion. There has to be a party that claims a breach for a suit to take place. If both parties are happy with the contract and its results, then why would there be a suit?
The kid decides he doesn’t want to play in the bowl game he signed a contract to play in at the beginning of the season, or the beginning of his career. If the terms of the contract break the law, he has an easy out, and may be able to sue for even more money.
You’re writing the contract based on playing time. Contract is null and void. You’re paying him for his name, image, and likeness. Not to play football. You’re also tying it to a specific team/school.
Yep, my parents contributions go straight to the school though. Players can’t get any at this point but that’ll probably change soon enough.
The NFL is an entirely different animal that was raised and grown in an entirely different way. The NFL was never fully funded by a fanbase and booster system nor tied to a school and alumni base. It had no system in place ready to circumvent their system of contracts and pay. The athletes have always been employees. The athletes have a union. The athletes and league have a cba. We’re also talking about what’s legal to do right now, not what may be legal to do later. The NFL is allowed to do lots of things the schools can’t right now.
Sure, he has an easy out. If player X is the one that breaches said illegal contract, what are his damages (which, by they way, he is also a party to) if he breaches? If the NIL collective feels the contract signed was not legal, then they surely wouldn't sue for breach. In other words at worst its no different than the situation we find ourselves in now when the players don't want to play in a bowl or the post-season.
So what? Player X benefits and University Y benefits, and no one is going to enforce said law or rules. Who is the loser?
You can’t breach a contract that wasn’t legal in the first place. I still wouldn’t put it past our court system to reward damages to the perceived aggrieved party, which will be the poor athlete, not the rich booster.
You would write and sign a contract that is in outright defiance of state law? You know a lawyer that would prepare and witness this? I wouldn’t and have to assume most folks with the money to play this game wouldn’t either. Though I do think the game is pretty stupid to begin with, so maybe I’m overestimating them.
Personally, I think the State would be hard pressed to keep this law intact that overturns contract law precedent that goes back to the Magna Carta. Of course that is just my opinion, which we all know is worth squat. I have no doubt that one of our Morgan and Morgan types could try, I just think the likelihood of it occurring would be low, and the return potentially high.....particularly if the contract is structured such that extra play comes with extra pay vs the punitive model.
I just don’t think too many people would willingly do this. An athlete that grew up in the projects might sign the deal, but would the rich businessman and lawyer really write it up? We saw the insane deal that Dexter signed, so there’s no limit on that side of the table. I would think the other side of the table might wish (and know they need) to be more protected. Breaking NCAA rules is one thing, and I’d do that all day everyday and twice on Sunday. Just threaten to sue and they’ll go away. Some folks did get caught up in an fbi investigation pushing those boundaries too though. Knowingly and willingly breaking state laws is a different animal and a different risk.
You don't have to be a lawyer to create or witness a contract. It might be helpful to do so, but not required. This game has been going on for eons....The State of Alabama is pretty much founded on creative ways to cheat.
You don’t have to, but generally would. How many of these deals do you think are not prepared by an attorney? I’d bet close to zero. The whole point of the contract is to protect yourself in whatever deal you’re making. You’d want someone who understands the law to help guide you into not making mistakes. What’s the point of even having a contract if both sides know neither side is bound to it because it’s not legal? Just give the kid cash and hope he does what you want like it used to be. I prepare lots of contracts myself, but mostly use a self created fill in the blank form that was initially setup with the help of an attorney. I don’t include him in every deal, but I did seek advice on the general verbiage of the contract when we drew it up. If I add in any significant verbiage, I usually consult him to make sure I’m still protected. Some verbiage I would like to use is not legal, and could potentially void my whole contract, so we just don’t use it or find another way to say what we want without using some specific term. We recently added verbiage to avoid having to go through a new process because of a law change. It’s been challenged multiple times so far, and our new verbiage has held up. Without the attorney’s guidance, we’d likely have to go through a much longer, and much more costly process, and might even lose a case that is a clear win. Saying just do it because nobody cares is cool when you’re breaking rules, not so much when you’re breaking laws, imo. Even if you think nobody is enforcing the law, it still seems crazy to knowingly and willingly put verbiage in a contract that is illegal. Creative ways to cheat is one thing. What you’re talking about is not really creative. It’s brazen. Using appearances at a certain location to tie a kid to a specific school is creative. Typing up and signing a contract that explicitly violates the law is not really creative.
