[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/du..._permalink (should be gifted)

For those people who think we should be more like Duke basketball in this new world, here’s your blueprint:

1) Donate lots of money to an opaque non-profit
2) ?
3) Win national title

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/du..._permalink (should be gifted)

For those people who think we should be more like Duke basketball in this new world, here’s your blueprint:

1) Donate lots of money to an opaque non-profit
2) ?
3) Win national title

BC

[jacket3ree]

I don't want to be Duke per se, but would welcome Duke-like or even Duke-lite results.  I don't need to see the sausage being paid for. A couple of points:

1. Perfectly legal and within the rules.
2. Do we know Stanford doesn't already have something like this too?
3. While I welcome the results, don't be looking to me for any (big) cash.

Like you have said, one is better off lighting money on fire (basically just as entertaining), continue pursuing hobbies that require premium gasoline, take the family on nice vacations, and help fund our children's children's future.  But I of course reserve the right to bitch on the internet about 3-win seasons.

[jacket3ree]

I don't want to be Duke per se, but would welcome Duke-like or even Duke-lite results.  I don't need to see the sausage being paid for. A couple of points:

1. Perfectly legal and within the rules.
2. Do we know Stanford doesn't already have something like this too?
3. While I welcome the results, don't be looking to me for any (big) cash.

Like you have said, one is better off lighting money on fire (basically just as entertaining), continue pursuing hobbies that require premium gasoline, take the family on nice vacations, and help fund our children's children's future.  But I of course reserve the right to bitch on the internet about 3-win seasons.

[chrisk]

I don't want to be Duke per se, but would welcome Duke-like or even Duke-lite results.  I don't need to see the sausage being paid for. A couple of points:

1. Perfectly legal and within the rules.
2. Do we know Stanford doesn't already have something like this too?
3. While I welcome the results, don't be looking to me for any (big) cash.

Like you have said, one is better off lighting money on fire (basically just as entertaining), continue pursuing hobbies that require premium gasoline, take the family on nice vacations, and help fund our children's children's future.  But I of course reserve the right to bitch on the internet about 3-win seasons.

With the expected House settlement this month, there will be significant changes to the rules which will affect Duke,
Stanford, and almost everybody else. Luck is moving toward implementing the House settlement at Stanford.

[chrisk]

I don't want to be Duke per se, but would welcome Duke-like or even Duke-lite results.  I don't need to see the sausage being paid for. A couple of points:

1. Perfectly legal and within the rules.
2. Do we know Stanford doesn't already have something like this too?
3. While I welcome the results, don't be looking to me for any (big) cash.

Like you have said, one is better off lighting money on fire (basically just as entertaining), continue pursuing hobbies that require premium gasoline, take the family on nice vacations, and help fund our children's children's future.  But I of course reserve the right to bitch on the internet about 3-win seasons.

With the expected House settlement this month, there will be significant changes to the rules which will affect Duke,
Stanford, and almost everybody else. Luck is moving toward implementing the House settlement at Stanford.

[M T]

There's "legal" and there is "within the rules".   The avoidance of the Duke BB funding group to identify how much is paid to the players calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.   If player X makes an appearance in an ad, then there should be traceable payments.  If player X is paid without any corresponding NIL activity, what's that?

On the "legal" side, it also makes me wonder what the IRS sees when it looks at the income of the players.

The article indicates this OVFF was incorporated as a non-profit.   But I note that when I search the IRS for a tax-exempt organization by that name, I wasn't able to find it.  That's ok by me if it is not claimed to be a have a charitable exemption.

IMO (IANAL), NIL is *not* a charitable purpose, any more than giving money to the SF 49ers, their players, or any GoFundMe fund.  One is not giving money for education, charity, or any public purpose.


This goes for Lifetime Cardinal too.  When I go to their page, I note I do NOT see any claim that they are a tax-exempt organization.  That seems odd that they neither claim nor deny tax-exempt status, and ask for donations.  Donor beware!

The web page indicates "Lifetime Cardinal" is a LLC.  The California Secretary of State indicates there is a Lifetime Cardinal, LLC with initial filing in March 2023, incorporated in Delaware, with address in NY, with its agent in Glendale, CA.  There is a separate entity,  "Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund", initial filing March 2025 (ie, less than a month ago), incorporated in Delaware, with its agent in Glendale, CA.

The State of New York does not list either organization in its charities search.  
The State of California DOJ/AG indicates Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund is an unregistered (I presume that means "in California") organization.  FEIN 993695562. 
The California FTB indicates that Lifetime Cardinal, LLC is not exempt.
It also indicates that Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund is not exempt.  (But, I would double check that, considering the IRS letter below)
The IRS does list that organization as receiving tax-exempt status 12/11/2024, with filing date of 12/31.  The IRS does not currently list the Form 990 for that organization (determined to be a public charity) that was due on 12/31/2024.

I suppose a fund could claim that it spent some amount of money (say $10,000) to pay one athlete to show up at an event that has some public purpose (say, to not use drugs).   Depending on the amount of money involved and the nature of the public purpose, it might pass the sniff test.   But, if it were that $10M were spent to have 100 players show up at the athletic department annual banquet, that wouldn't pass the sniff test.

[M T]

There's "legal" and there is "within the rules".   The avoidance of the Duke BB funding group to identify how much is paid to the players calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.   If player X makes an appearance in an ad, then there should be traceable payments.  If player X is paid without any corresponding NIL activity, what's that?

On the "legal" side, it also makes me wonder what the IRS sees when it looks at the income of the players.

The article indicates this OVFF was incorporated as a non-profit.   But I note that when I search the IRS for a tax-exempt organization by that name, I wasn't able to find it.  That's ok by me if it is not claimed to be a have a charitable exemption.

IMO (IANAL), NIL is *not* a charitable purpose, any more than giving money to the SF 49ers, their players, or any GoFundMe fund.  One is not giving money for education, charity, or any public purpose.


This goes for Lifetime Cardinal too.  When I go to their page, I note I do NOT see any claim that they are a tax-exempt organization.  That seems odd that they neither claim nor deny tax-exempt status, and ask for donations.  Donor beware!

The web page indicates "Lifetime Cardinal" is a LLC.  The California Secretary of State indicates there is a Lifetime Cardinal, LLC with initial filing in March 2023, incorporated in Delaware, with address in NY, with its agent in Glendale, CA.  There is a separate entity,  "Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund", initial filing March 2025 (ie, less than a month ago), incorporated in Delaware, with its agent in Glendale, CA.

The State of New York does not list either organization in its charities search.  
The State of California DOJ/AG indicates Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund is an unregistered (I presume that means "in California") organization.  FEIN 993695562. 
The California FTB indicates that Lifetime Cardinal, LLC is not exempt.
It also indicates that Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund is not exempt.  (But, I would double check that, considering the IRS letter below)
The IRS does list that organization as receiving tax-exempt status 12/11/2024, with filing date of 12/31.  The IRS does not currently list the Form 990 for that organization (determined to be a public charity) that was due on 12/31/2024.

I suppose a fund could claim that it spent some amount of money (say $10,000) to pay one athlete to show up at an event that has some public purpose (say, to not use drugs).   Depending on the amount of money involved and the nature of the public purpose, it might pass the sniff test.   But, if it were that $10M were spent to have 100 players show up at the athletic department annual banquet, that wouldn't pass the sniff test.

[BobK]

Yet lifetime cardinal is tax exempt

[BobK]

Yet lifetime cardinal is tax exempt

[chrisk]

There's "legal" and there is "within the rules".   The avoidance of the Duke BB funding group to identify how much is paid to the players calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.   If player X makes an appearance in an ad, then there should be traceable payments.  If player X is paid without any corresponding NIL activity, what's that?

On the "legal" side, it also makes me wonder what the IRS sees when it looks at the income of the players.

The article indicates this OVFF was incorporated as a non-profit.   But I note that when I search the IRS for a tax-exempt organization by that name, I wasn't able to find it.  That's ok by me if it is not claimed to be a have a charitable exemption.

IMO (IANAL), NIL is *not* a charitable purpose, any more than giving money to the SF 49ers, their players, or any GoFundMe fund.  One is not giving money for education, charity, or any public purpose.


This goes for Lifetime Cardinal too.  When I go to their page, I note I do NOT see any claim that they are a tax-exempt organization.  That seems odd that they neither claim nor deny tax-exempt status, and ask for donations.  Donor beware!

The web page indicates "Lifetime Cardinal" is a LLC.  The California Secretary of State indicates there is a Lifetime Cardinal, LLC with initial filing in March 2023, incorporated in Delaware, with address in NY, with its agent in Glendale, CA.  There is a separate entity,  "Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund", initial filing March 2025 (ie, less than a month ago), incorporated in Delaware, with its agent in Glendale, CA.

The State of New York does not list either organization in its charities search.  
The State of California DOJ/AG indicates Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund is an unregistered (I presume that means "in California") organization.  FEIN 993695562. 
The California FTB indicates that Lifetime Cardinal, LLC is not exempt.
It also indicates that Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund is not exempt.  (But, I would double check that, considering the IRS letter below)
The IRS does list that organization as receiving tax-exempt status 12/11/2024, with filing date of 12/31.  The IRS does not currently list the Form 990 for that organization (determined to be a public charity) that was due on 12/31/2024.

I suppose a fund could claim that it spent some amount of money (say $10,000) to pay one athlete to show up at an event that has some public purpose (say, to not use drugs).   Depending on the amount of money involved and the nature of the public purpose, it might pass the sniff test.   But, if it were that $10M were spent to have 100 players show up at the athletic department annual banquet, that wouldn't pass the sniff test.

I don't see any claim on the Lifetime Cardinal website that donations are tax-deductible.

[chrisk]

There's "legal" and there is "within the rules".   The avoidance of the Duke BB funding group to identify how much is paid to the players calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.   If player X makes an appearance in an ad, then there should be traceable payments.  If player X is paid without any corresponding NIL activity, what's that?

On the "legal" side, it also makes me wonder what the IRS sees when it looks at the income of the players.

The article indicates this OVFF was incorporated as a non-profit.   But I note that when I search the IRS for a tax-exempt organization by that name, I wasn't able to find it.  That's ok by me if it is not claimed to be a have a charitable exemption.

IMO (IANAL), NIL is *not* a charitable purpose, any more than giving money to the SF 49ers, their players, or any GoFundMe fund.  One is not giving money for education, charity, or any public purpose.


This goes for Lifetime Cardinal too.  When I go to their page, I note I do NOT see any claim that they are a tax-exempt organization.  That seems odd that they neither claim nor deny tax-exempt status, and ask for donations.  Donor beware!

The web page indicates "Lifetime Cardinal" is a LLC.  The California Secretary of State indicates there is a Lifetime Cardinal, LLC with initial filing in March 2023, incorporated in Delaware, with address in NY, with its agent in Glendale, CA.  There is a separate entity,  "Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund", initial filing March 2025 (ie, less than a month ago), incorporated in Delaware, with its agent in Glendale, CA.

The State of New York does not list either organization in its charities search.  
The State of California DOJ/AG indicates Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund is an unregistered (I presume that means "in California") organization.  FEIN 993695562. 
The California FTB indicates that Lifetime Cardinal, LLC is not exempt.
It also indicates that Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund is not exempt.  (But, I would double check that, considering the IRS letter below)
The IRS does list that organization as receiving tax-exempt status 12/11/2024, with filing date of 12/31.  The IRS does not currently list the Form 990 for that organization (determined to be a public charity) that was due on 12/31/2024.

I suppose a fund could claim that it spent some amount of money (say $10,000) to pay one athlete to show up at an event that has some public purpose (say, to not use drugs).   Depending on the amount of money involved and the nature of the public purpose, it might pass the sniff test.   But, if it were that $10M were spent to have 100 players show up at the athletic department annual banquet, that wouldn't pass the sniff test.

I don't see any claim on the Lifetime Cardinal website that donations are tax-deductible.

[BostonCard]

Regardless of how it’s structured, does anyone think that donations to a collective are, in spirit charitable?  While many might think that Stanford athletics is a basket case deserving of being resuscitated, let’s be honest with ourselves, any charitable work here is, at best, a fig leaf.

BC

[BostonCard]

Regardless of how it’s structured, does anyone think that donations to a collective are, in spirit charitable?  While many might think that Stanford athletics is a basket case deserving of being resuscitated, let’s be honest with ourselves, any charitable work here is, at best, a fig leaf.

BC

[M T]

BC, I do not believe that, say, Canady would be able to do $1M worth of charity work in her year.

However, I do believe that, in the past and into the future, Stanford athletes have done and will do charitable work (helping out kids groups typically, but also other things, esp. related to Pink Day or other charities).  That was probably done without specific payment, but also was probably voluntary.

Certainly, members of Stanford teams might talk to high schoolers about mental health issues, or help run workshops on the issue of intoxication and sexual abuse.  I would think they could be compensated for their participation.  That would be income to the athletes, but the organization paying it could reasonably say that their payment to the athletes was tax deductible.  That's not a fig leaf.

Do I think that any athletes at Stanford would find charities outside of Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund (presumably funded or managed by Lifetime Cardinal LLC) that would pay the same fees to the athlete as that fund would?  I doubt it.  If you pay $5,000 for each player-day of doing this, a player getting $500K to come to Stanford would have to work 100 days to cover it.

So I believe this arrangement could be done, but I believe it has significant risk of being abused by overpayment.  This in turn could wind up with charges of fraud and tax-evasion for the operators (possibly not the players) and possibly tax issues for donors.

But I'm not the guy giving $5M to such an organization.

[M T]

BC, I do not believe that, say, Canady would be able to do $1M worth of charity work in her year.

However, I do believe that, in the past and into the future, Stanford athletes have done and will do charitable work (helping out kids groups typically, but also other things, esp. related to Pink Day or other charities).  That was probably done without specific payment, but also was probably voluntary.

Certainly, members of Stanford teams might talk to high schoolers about mental health issues, or help run workshops on the issue of intoxication and sexual abuse.  I would think they could be compensated for their participation.  That would be income to the athletes, but the organization paying it could reasonably say that their payment to the athletes was tax deductible.  That's not a fig leaf.

Do I think that any athletes at Stanford would find charities outside of Lifetime Cardinal Community Fund (presumably funded or managed by Lifetime Cardinal LLC) that would pay the same fees to the athlete as that fund would?  I doubt it.  If you pay $5,000 for each player-day of doing this, a player getting $500K to come to Stanford would have to work 100 days to cover it.

So I believe this arrangement could be done, but I believe it has significant risk of being abused by overpayment.  This in turn could wind up with charges of fraud and tax-evasion for the operators (possibly not the players) and possibly tax issues for donors.

But I'm not the guy giving $5M to such an organization.

[BostonCard]

There are two separate issues.  The first is whether any work that the athletes due can be classified as for the benefits of a charity.  The answer to that is probably yes, as you note, although you can reasonably ask about whether the compensation they receive for that work is truly reflective of that work.  Regardless, though, I believe that if they are receiving compensation for that work, it is reportable as income tax (I’m not a tax lawyer, though).  I know plenty of people whose employer is a charitable entity (ie, program managers for foundations), and they do pay income taxes on their salaries.

The second question is whether donations to the collectives are tax deductible.  As Bob notes, and you had identified earlier, Lifetime Cardinal can be registered as a non-profit, and (maybe) donations to it might be tax deductible (again, not a tax lawyer).  My only point is that let’s be honest here, in spirit donations to Lifetime Cardinal might technically be tax deductible (I’ll say again, I’m not a tax attorney) but they utterly fail in the spirit of the idea of donating to charity.  Let’s be honest here, anyone donating to Lifetime Cardinal is not doing it so that our athletes can spread positive messages about not doing drugs or mental health.  Donors to Lifetime Cardinal are doing it so that we can pay our athletes to play for Stanford.  That’s my point.  In spirit, calling Lifetime Cardinal (or any collective) a charity is borderline offensive.  If people want to pay athletes NIL money that’s their business, but come on… it should not be tax advantaged.

BC

[BostonCard]

There are two separate issues.  The first is whether any work that the athletes due can be classified as for the benefits of a charity.  The answer to that is probably yes, as you note, although you can reasonably ask about whether the compensation they receive for that work is truly reflective of that work.  Regardless, though, I believe that if they are receiving compensation for that work, it is reportable as income tax (I’m not a tax lawyer, though).  I know plenty of people whose employer is a charitable entity (ie, program managers for foundations), and they do pay income taxes on their salaries.

The second question is whether donations to the collectives are tax deductible.  As Bob notes, and you had identified earlier, Lifetime Cardinal can be registered as a non-profit, and (maybe) donations to it might be tax deductible (again, not a tax lawyer).  My only point is that let’s be honest here, in spirit donations to Lifetime Cardinal might technically be tax deductible (I’ll say again, I’m not a tax attorney) but they utterly fail in the spirit of the idea of donating to charity.  Let’s be honest here, anyone donating to Lifetime Cardinal is not doing it so that our athletes can spread positive messages about not doing drugs or mental health.  Donors to Lifetime Cardinal are doing it so that we can pay our athletes to play for Stanford.  That’s my point.  In spirit, calling Lifetime Cardinal (or any collective) a charity is borderline offensive.  If people want to pay athletes NIL money that’s their business, but come on… it should not be tax advantaged.

BC

[Sam Leopold]

https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/du..._permalink (should be gifted)

For those people who think we should be more like Duke basketball in this new world, here’s your blueprint:

1) Donate lots of money to an opaque non-profit
2) ?
3) Win national title

BC

Somewhere in that "?" there has to be a clause that says "Don't give up a 9-0 run in the last 38 seconds" although it admittedly could take quite a bit of unpacking to get at it.....

[Sam Leopold]

https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/du..._permalink (should be gifted)

For those people who think we should be more like Duke basketball in this new world, here’s your blueprint:

1) Donate lots of money to an opaque non-profit
2) ?
3) Win national title

BC

Somewhere in that "?" there has to be a clause that says "Don't give up a 9-0 run in the last 38 seconds" although it admittedly could take quite a bit of unpacking to get at it.....

[chrisk]

The final settlement approval hearing in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, 20-cv-03919, and Hubbard v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 23-cv-01593, will take place on Monday, April 7 at 10:00AM PST. The hearing will be held in person with remote (Zoom) access.

NCAA President does not expect Judge Wilkens to issue Final Approval tomorrow, but does expect it to come. Tomorrow is a chance for objections to be made.

The public can watch the hearing here (first 1000)
https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/wilken-claudia-cw/

Conferences share new and significant progress toward implementation of House settlement

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2025/3/12/medi...ement.aspx

Settlement Implementation Committee, made up of 10 athletics directors (two from each defendant conference)

Trev Alberts, Texas A&M.
Scott Barnes, Oregon State.
Mitch Barnhart, Kentucky.
J Batt, Georgia Tech.
Ross Bjork, Ohio State.
Pat Chun, Washington.
John Cunningham, Cincinnati.
Anne McCoy, Washington State.
Graham Neff, Clemson.
Desireé Reed-Francois, Arizona.

1.Drafting new rules and clarifying existing rules to facilitate consistent compliance with all aspects of the settlement.

2.Developing a digital platform for the reporting and measurement of payments made to student-athletes by their institutions to ensure compliance with the cap set forth in the proposed settlement.

3.Creating a system to ensure that third-party name, image and likeness deals entered into with student-athletes are legitimate deals that will use the student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose.

4.Forming a new entity to enforce these rules with an emphasis on efficient investigative procedures, timely decision-making, appropriate penalties, and ensuring accountability for bad actors.

[chrisk]

The final settlement approval hearing in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, 20-cv-03919, and Hubbard v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 23-cv-01593, will take place on Monday, April 7 at 10:00AM PST. The hearing will be held in person with remote (Zoom) access.

NCAA President does not expect Judge Wilkens to issue Final Approval tomorrow, but does expect it to come. Tomorrow is a chance for objections to be made.

The public can watch the hearing here (first 1000)
https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/wilken-claudia-cw/

Conferences share new and significant progress toward implementation of House settlement

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2025/3/12/medi...ement.aspx

Settlement Implementation Committee, made up of 10 athletics directors (two from each defendant conference)

Trev Alberts, Texas A&M.
Scott Barnes, Oregon State.
Mitch Barnhart, Kentucky.
J Batt, Georgia Tech.
Ross Bjork, Ohio State.
Pat Chun, Washington.
John Cunningham, Cincinnati.
Anne McCoy, Washington State.
Graham Neff, Clemson.
Desireé Reed-Francois, Arizona.

1.Drafting new rules and clarifying existing rules to facilitate consistent compliance with all aspects of the settlement.

2.Developing a digital platform for the reporting and measurement of payments made to student-athletes by their institutions to ensure compliance with the cap set forth in the proposed settlement.

3.Creating a system to ensure that third-party name, image and likeness deals entered into with student-athletes are legitimate deals that will use the student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose.

4.Forming a new entity to enforce these rules with an emphasis on efficient investigative procedures, timely decision-making, appropriate penalties, and ensuring accountability for bad actors.

[Goose]

3.Creating a system to ensure that third-party name, image and likeness deals entered into with student-athletes are legitimate deals that will use the student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose.

4.Forming a new entity to enforce these rules with an emphasis on efficient investigative procedures, timely decision-making, appropriate penalties, and ensuring accountability for bad actors.

This I got to see. A justice system created instantly from whole cloth that is actually going to work flawlessly to enforce regulations that are not yet written! What a concept! I think they should add ending both the Ukraine and Gaza war for a good measure.

[Goose]

3.Creating a system to ensure that third-party name, image and likeness deals entered into with student-athletes are legitimate deals that will use the student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose.

4.Forming a new entity to enforce these rules with an emphasis on efficient investigative procedures, timely decision-making, appropriate penalties, and ensuring accountability for bad actors.

This I got to see. A justice system created instantly from whole cloth that is actually going to work flawlessly to enforce regulations that are not yet written! What a concept! I think they should add ending both the Ukraine and Gaza war for a good measure.

[martyup]

Non-profit organizations receiving tax exempt status under IRC Section 501©(3) can include organizations with purposes that are religious, charitable, scientific, for public safety, literary, educational, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children.

[martyup]

Non-profit organizations receiving tax exempt status under IRC Section 501©(3) can include organizations with purposes that are religious, charitable, scientific, for public safety, literary, educational, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children.

[Goose]

Non-profit organizations receiving tax exempt status under IRC Section 501©(3) can include organizations with purposes that are religious, charitable, scientific, for public safety, literary, educational, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children.

Fine, but how does an organization created solely to pay athletes for playing their sport foster amateur sports competition?

[Goose]

Non-profit organizations receiving tax exempt status under IRC Section 501©(3) can include organizations with purposes that are religious, charitable, scientific, for public safety, literary, educational, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children.

Fine, but how does an organization created solely to pay athletes for playing their sport foster amateur sports competition?

[StanfordMatt]

3.Creating a system to ensure that third-party name, image and likeness deals entered into with student-athletes are legitimate deals that will use the student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose.

4.Forming a new entity to enforce these rules with an emphasis on efficient investigative procedures, timely decision-making, appropriate penalties, and ensuring accountability for bad actors.

Settle three antitrust cases and open the door to countless more. When will people affiliated with college athletics understand that you cannot artifically restrict an individual's to earn compensation from third parties unless you do so via an employment contract or collectively bargained agreement?

The worst part is that everyone involved in this case from Judge Wilken to the attorneys know this to be true but they are just ready to be done with it. I get it. The lawyers have been working on these cases for years and are about to hit their $400 million payday.

Most FBS programs appear to be structuring their revenue share to be paid out as follows: 75% football, 15% men's basketball, 5% women's basketball, 5% everyone else. Places like Duke will be interesting case studies to see how they deviate from this structure. There is a thought among Big East basketball programs that they will be at an advantage compared to D1 basketball programs at FBS schools (see: Kevin Willard). Regardless of how they do it, I don't see the engine that is Duke basketball slowing down in anyway as a result of the House settlement.

[StanfordMatt]

3.Creating a system to ensure that third-party name, image and likeness deals entered into with student-athletes are legitimate deals that will use the student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose.

4.Forming a new entity to enforce these rules with an emphasis on efficient investigative procedures, timely decision-making, appropriate penalties, and ensuring accountability for bad actors.

Settle three antitrust cases and open the door to countless more. When will people affiliated with college athletics understand that you cannot artifically restrict an individual's to earn compensation from third parties unless you do so via an employment contract or collectively bargained agreement?

The worst part is that everyone involved in this case from Judge Wilken to the attorneys know this to be true but they are just ready to be done with it. I get it. The lawyers have been working on these cases for years and are about to hit their $400 million payday.

Most FBS programs appear to be structuring their revenue share to be paid out as follows: 75% football, 15% men's basketball, 5% women's basketball, 5% everyone else. Places like Duke will be interesting case studies to see how they deviate from this structure. There is a thought among Big East basketball programs that they will be at an advantage compared to D1 basketball programs at FBS schools (see: Kevin Willard). Regardless of how they do it, I don't see the engine that is Duke basketball slowing down in anyway as a result of the House settlement.

[chrisk]

Non-profit organizations receiving tax exempt status under IRC Section 501©(3) can include organizations with purposes that are religious, charitable, scientific, for public safety, literary, educational, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children.

IRS CONTINUES CRACK DOWN ON NIL COLLECTIVES’ ATTEMPTS AT TAX-EXEMPT STATUS

https://www.ustaxdisputes.com/nil-collec...-scrutiny/

---

3.Creating a system to ensure that third-party name, image and likeness deals entered into with student-athletes are legitimate deals that will use the student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose.

4.Forming a new entity to enforce these rules with an emphasis on efficient investigative procedures, timely decision-making, appropriate penalties, and ensuring accountability for bad actors.

This I got to see. A justice system created instantly from whole cloth that is actually going to work flawlessly to enforce regulations that are not yet written! What a concept! I think they should add ending both the Ukraine and Gaza war for a good measure.

We are all cynical, but it will be years before the Spreme Court would hear this settlement, let alone overturn it.
In 3 or 4 years, Congress may be in a position to codify it into law. In the meantime, if the major schools, such as those represented on the committee, lean into it, it could last then.

[chrisk]

Non-profit organizations receiving tax exempt status under IRC Section 501©(3) can include organizations with purposes that are religious, charitable, scientific, for public safety, literary, educational, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children.

IRS CONTINUES CRACK DOWN ON NIL COLLECTIVES’ ATTEMPTS AT TAX-EXEMPT STATUS

https://www.ustaxdisputes.com/nil-collec...-scrutiny/

---

3.Creating a system to ensure that third-party name, image and likeness deals entered into with student-athletes are legitimate deals that will use the student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose.

4.Forming a new entity to enforce these rules with an emphasis on efficient investigative procedures, timely decision-making, appropriate penalties, and ensuring accountability for bad actors.

This I got to see. A justice system created instantly from whole cloth that is actually going to work flawlessly to enforce regulations that are not yet written! What a concept! I think they should add ending both the Ukraine and Gaza war for a good measure.

We are all cynical, but it will be years before the Spreme Court would hear this settlement, let alone overturn it.
In 3 or 4 years, Congress may be in a position to codify it into law. In the meantime, if the major schools, such as those represented on the committee, lean into it, it could last then.

[CowboyIndian]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

[CowboyIndian]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

[Giants]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

[Giants]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

[Goose]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

It may be above board but it will be so totally hamstrung by litigation it won't matter much. There are so many targets for litigation already apparent it boggles the mind.

[Goose]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

It may be above board but it will be so totally hamstrung by litigation it won't matter much. There are so many targets for litigation already apparent it boggles the mind.

[Mudhead]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

It may be in the fine print. I think the collectives may be regulated if they are affiliated with the schools. But I don’t think you can regulate what an individual NIL payer  , or a private group like the Duke guys, does or spends . I think they can pay whatever they want.  

Let me add that I do not know that, I am just surmising that from conversations with some non Stanford NIL daddies.

[Mudhead]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

It may be in the fine print. I think the collectives may be regulated if they are affiliated with the schools. But I don’t think you can regulate what an individual NIL payer  , or a private group like the Duke guys, does or spends . I think they can pay whatever they want.  

Let me add that I do not know that, I am just surmising that from conversations with some non Stanford NIL daddies.