• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

Arbitrator Upholds CSC Denial of Nebraska's NIL Deals with Playfly

Sounds like UNL is going to change language and resubmit.

Perhaps they should have done that instead of arbitration.

The language issues in the contracts seemed pretty obvious, so hopefully they will restructure and get CSC approval.

Otherwise if the NE AG gets involved or players start taking legal action, this could become a bigger hit show!
 
Speedlimit said:
Sounds like UNL is going to change language and resubmit.

Perhaps they should have done that instead of arbitration.

The language issues in the contracts seemed pretty obvious, so hopefully they will restructure and get CSC approval.

Otherwise if the NE AG gets involved or players start taking legal action, this could become a bigger hit show!
Click to expand...
I brought this up back in March because these Payfly deals were such a clear, direct violation. Just based on the fact that nobody else was going to arbitration told me that the deals were being used to buy time. Get the player signed and then look for legitimate deals to replace it once it got rejected.

But we are over here challenging in court, and worse, losing in court. And worse, the ruling is Payfly was serving as an extension of the University when the entire point is to appear as far away from them as you can get. We are getting dangerously close to taking cap hits on these.

RedRum said:
I posted bylaw 22.1.1.1. "An institution shall not provide a written or oral guarantee to a student athlete of a third-party NIL contract or payment."

There is just no way, the University would be getting themselves in the mix of third party NIL when it is a direct violation of those terms.

As to a joint representation agreement, this leads to exactly my point. The most likely reason would be because there are other forms of direct payments from the University and direct benefit caps that must be adhered to. The last thing UNL would want is to have a ruling that the benefit was promised and should be counter towards the cap. We want to be as far away from the deal as possible, while also being able to defend against accusations.

Its hard to see what they are trying to argue here. Not only is warehousing a clear reason to reject an agreement, they put out an advisory specifically addressing it as a reason to reject. The statements of taking it to the Nebraska courts are like they plan on losing in arbitration. Maybe there are other motives to get some action on the participation agreements.

The deals sound even more sketchy the longer they sit out there. Its been several months. If they had legit NIL, then they should have been able to back them with contracts by now and make this a moot point. The latest deal flow report is this:

21,025 deals cleared worth $166M.
711 deals not cleared worth $29M.
18 deals in arbitration, all Nebraska players.
Click to expand...
 
RedRum said:
I brought this up back in March because these Payfly deals were such a clear, direct violation. Just based on the fact that nobody else was going to arbitration told me that the deals were being used to buy time. Get the player signed and then look for legitimate deals to replace it once it got rejected.

But we are over here challenging in court, and worse, losing in court. And worse, the ruling is Payfly was serving as an extension of the University when the entire point is to appear as far away from them as you can get. We are getting dangerously close to taking cap hits on these.
Click to expand...
Any credible legal opinions I’ve read suggest that Nebraska or one of the other states who have passed laws protecting NIL in their state will challenge the NCAA clearinghouse in court eventually. And the issue is that the clearinghouse is still a violation of the principle the NCAA has been breaking all along. Professional sports leagues can have salary caps because they have a collective bargaining agreement, and are able to have an exemption from labor laws that would otherwise be enforced to prevent illegal collusion.

These Nebraska deals will either be passed fundamentally unchanged with some language changes, or this will probably become a larger challenge that could blow up the entire clearinghouse system.

I’d love if a labor attorney would explain it for us, but there are articles predicting this eventuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS





Back
Top