MN state rep Nolan West working to propose similar legislation to new California law

Donate To GopherHole

MnplsGopher said:
PE, that might be some kind of legit grand vision ... but why are you having difficulty accepting this as a baby step?

If a magic genie could guarantee that the NIL route would not harm major college football in terms of fan/TV viewer popularity, you can’t really have any objection to the idea that a person owns the rights to their own image, correct??
Click to expand...

It doesn’t make sense to me to argue for publicity rights (NIL) for only non-game or team related activities.

Players in most conferences currently sign away their NIL rights when they sign with a team. It seems the CA law makes that incompatible/null and void for their schools. Why the provision that seems to prevent players from fighting for the pot of tv gold?

O’Bannon and others were fighting for a piece of the tv broadcast rights pot of money. Wilken (judge) somehow came up with the figure of $5000 per year per player (men and women). That provision was struck down by a higher court. It seems to me the NIL rights are much more valuable than 5000 per year and it is curious (but telling) someone told the CA rep Skinner they can’t have that (rights to NIL for broadcasts) in the law...and yet here we are with pundits celebrating getting basically leftover crumbs in terms of money.

My POV is if the field of competition becomes even more terminally imbalanced by going down the professional route (and CA’s neutered law still does that) then we might as well see it burn to the ground in spectacular fashion with collective bargaining, holdouts, strikes, grandstanding.


_
 
Last edited:

Pompous Elitist said:
It doesn’t make sense to me to argue for publicity rights (NIL) for only non-game or team related activities.

Players in most conferences currently sign away their NIL rights when they sign with a team. It seems the CA law makes that incompatible/null and void for their schools. Why the provision that seems to prevent players from fighting for the pot of tv gold?

O’Bannon and others were fighting for a piece of the tv broadcast rights pot of money. Wilken (judge) somehow came up with the figure of $5000 per year per player (men and women). That provision was struck down by a higher court. It seems to me the NIL rights are much more valuable than 5000 per year and it is curious (but telling) someone told the CA rep Skinner they can’t have that (rights to NIL for broadcasts) in the law...and yet here we are with pundits celebrating getting basically leftover crumbs in terms of money.

My POV is if the field of competition becomes even more terminally imbalanced by going down the professional route (and CA’s neutered law still does that) then we might as well see it burn to the ground in spectacular fashion with collective bargaining, holdouts, strikes, grandstanding.


_
Click to expand...

I don't agree, at all. Your post feels like you are desperately reaching for some way, any way to deny the players the right to sign individual contracts to use their own image. Something is more than zero. You refuse to acknowledge that, and want to force them to have to go for everything, which isn't likely to happen (possibly why you want to force that route).

Don't agree that it will significantly alter the competitive landscape. Everyone will do it.


We can agree to disagree.
 

MnplsGopher said:
I don't agree, at all. Your post feels like you are desperately reaching for some way, any way to deny the players the right to sign individual contracts to use their own image. Something is more than zero. You refuse to acknowledge that, and want to force them to have to go for everything, which isn't likely to happen (possibly why you want to force that route).

Don't agree that it will significantly alter the competitive landscape. Everyone will do it.


We can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Why settle for crumbs. You and Lebron have been had. If this happens I’ll actually swing over to the other side and argue for full NIL rights. The law as proposed is a weak half measure.
 

It looks like NFL players negotiated for about 55% of the tv money (could have had more). Why are you happy with zero percent, into perpetuity? It doesn’t make sense if you believe the players have rights to their NIL.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Why settle for crumbs. You and Lebron have been had. If this happens I’ll actually swing over to the other side and argue for full NIL rights. The law as proposed is a weak half measure.
Click to expand...

Baby steps is how it usually starts. Something is more than zero.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It looks like NFL players negotiated for about 55% of the tv money (could have had more). Why are you happy with zero percent, into perpetuity? It doesn’t make sense if you believe the players have rights to their NIL.
Click to expand...

NIL has nothing to do with TV rights or CBAs.

NFLPA negotiations don't use NIL as a basis for their CBA with the league.


If/when major college players get their own union/association and demand that conferences, schools, and TV broadcasters come to the table, then you might have something.
 

MnplsGopher said:
NIL has nothing to do with TV rights or CBAs.

NFLPA negotiations don't use NIL as a basis for their CBA with the league.


If/when major college players get their own union/association and demand that conferences, schools, and TV broadcasters come to the table, then you might have something.
Click to expand...

NIL is absolutely negotiable and inherently part of the discussion. The players can sign away their NIL rights (as they currently do) as NCAA rules prohibited any NIL deals. The CA law apparently chose to deal only with non-game or broadcast related NIL. Where are you getting your information?

Without the law on their side some players will still get zero or close to zero under the new law while other star players may make a little money. O’Bannon OTOH succeeded in getting 5000 per year per player for NIL but as I stated that was seen to go beyond the educational/amateur model and was struck down by a higher court.

So, this really is a half measure. I would think players could, en masse, still negotiate with the conferences (they control the money not the schools) for a part of the pie unless they explicitly sign away their rights.

With agents now able to solicit high schoolers maybe that model changes some way, some how with the students having more savvy people on their side.

Or, maybe future lawsuits will succeed in full NIL rights to tv proceeds if the NCAA goes along with this law. It seems hard to argue they can have NIL rights for this but not for that as a matter of course.
 

From the O’Bannon decision

“The court finds that a submarket exists in which television networks seek to acquire group licenses to use FBS football and Division I basketball players’ names, images and likenesses in live game telecasts,” U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote. “Television networks frequently enter into licensing agreements to use the intellectual property of schools, conferences, and event organizers — such as the NCAA or a bowl committee — in live telecasts of football and basketball games.

In these agreements, the network often seeks to acquire the rights to use the names, images and likenesses of the participating student-athletes during the telecast.”

The ruling will prevent the NCAA “from enforcing any rules or bylaws that would prohibit its member schools and conferences from offering their FBS football or Division I basketball recruits a limited share of the revenues generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses in addition to a full grant-in-aid
 
Last edited:



Pompous Elitist said:
NIL is absolutely negotiable and inherently part of the discussion. The players can sign away their NIL rights (as they currently do) as NCAA rules prohibited any NIL deals. The CA law apparently chose to deal only with non-game or broadcast related NIL. Where are you getting your information?

Without the law on their side some players will still get zero or close to zero under the new law while other star players may make a little money. O’Bannon OTOH succeeded in getting 5000 per year per player for NIL but as I stated that was seen to go beyond the educational/amateur model and was struck down by a higher court.

So, this really is a half measure. I would think players could, en masse, still negotiate with the conferences (they control the money not the schools) for a part of the pie unless they explicitly sign away their rights.

With agents now able to solicit high schoolers maybe that model changes some way, some how with the students having more savvy people on their side.

Or, maybe future lawsuits will succeed in full NIL rights to tv proceeds if the NCAA goes along with this law. It seems hard to argue they can have NIL rights for this but not for that as a matter of course.
Click to expand...

When/if major college players get their own union/association and demand that conferences, schools, and TV broadcasters come to the table, then you might have something.

I don’t see that any time soon. Nor do I see that being enabled by this specific thing that is currently in focus.
 

There are going to be a lot of people wanting a piece of that pie. It won’t be long. This greases the skids to that eventuality.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom