More NIL Horror Stories
- Thread starter corbi2961
- Start date
It’s called being poor and desperate. Not everybody comes into the world having won the gene pool lottery.
To strengthen his case I assume his attorney advised him to pay back the close to half a million he was given
What? He’s a professional athlete making millions of dollars. He hit the gene pool lottery.
He also wasn’t poor or desperate. He didn’t ask the right questions - any of his coaches or friends would have done the math and told him the deal would lose him money if he makes more than $3M from the NFL.
Magic Johnson signing that 25 year deal for $25M comes to mind in 1980. After he turned down a significant equity stake from Nike that would have made him billions on shoes (instead of MJ).
This guy, if he fulfills his potential, will be just fine financially. Ideally, other young athletes learn from this mistake.
Was he being compensated for his name, image, and likeness (NIL)? If so, why would he have to pay ANYTHING back? He already provided his name, image, and likeness.
I believe the premise of the lawsuit is related to whether the contract is invalid as it violates certain statues.
I’d imagine paying back the post tax earnings would seemingly help his cause in this scenario.
I think the main thing is that the NCAA allows players to receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness. If he's being asked to pay back the group with NFL earnings, then he wasn't really being compensated for his name, image, and likeness, was he?
If he was being compensated for his name, image, and likeness, then his name, image, and likeness are the only obligations allowed by the NCAA. Why should he have to pay any of that back?
… because he signed a contract?
Aren’t half of our posters lawyers? Can anyone clarify if this will hold up?
Does the NCAA allow contracts for compensation OTHER than for name, image, and likeness?
That’s an interesting take and depending how the lawsuit is worded, I could see Dexter’s side arguing that point.
Big League Advance, which operates as Big League Advantage, has been around since 2016. It was founded specifically for minor league baseball players (hence, Big League). Their most famous hit to date is Fernando Tatis, Jr., who is thought to have netted BLA ~$30 million over the life of his $340 million deal, on an initial cash payment of $350k.
This certainly isn’t a traditional (ha!) NIL deal, but part of the terms were that Gordon sign some autographs and make a social media post for BLA. So, weirdly, his NIL deal was with the fund itself. I assume there aren’t many (any?) NIL deals that aren’t just strict cash for services things. (I pay you, you tweet about me.)
Working with BLA makes a ton of sense if you’re a minor league prospect, especially before the MLB union began supporting them. But as a college football player, lots of expenses are covered and, depending on the school, you’re very likely to make *some* NFL money. I just don’t know that the ability to live larger in college is worth it.
I think Gordon made a bad deal. He only signed it in 2022, so hopefully he still has most of the cash.
www.espn.com
This certainly isn’t a traditional (ha!) NIL deal, but part of the terms were that Gordon sign some autographs and make a social media post for BLA. So, weirdly, his NIL deal was with the fund itself. I assume there aren’t many (any?) NIL deals that aren’t just strict cash for services things. (I pay you, you tweet about me.)
Working with BLA makes a ton of sense if you’re a minor league prospect, especially before the MLB union began supporting them. But as a college football player, lots of expenses are covered and, depending on the school, you’re very likely to make *some* NFL money. I just don’t know that the ability to live larger in college is worth it.
I think Gordon made a bad deal. He only signed it in 2022, so hopefully he still has most of the cash.
Florida legislator says Bears DT Gervon Dexter's NIL deal violated law
An NIL deal signed in 2022 that gave Bears rookie Gervon Dexter more than $400,000 in exchange for 15% of his future earnings in the NFL violated a state law, according to a Florida state legislator.
www.espn.com
The closest thing in my experience are individuals who want to break a release. The case on the subject that went all the way to the Supreme Court in my state is one I am personally familiar with having represented one of the parties. To make a long story short, yes a release can be broken in certain instances where one side can claim they didn't understand what they were agreeing to by signing the release.
(As a consequence of that case almost every release in Alaska since then recites the specific case and now has wording to the effect of, "Yes I understand there is a case that holds a release can be broken, but I expressly understand the terms of the release and that the holding in that case will not apply to me.")
If this can also be understood as a loan, are there usury laws that could also apply? This "interest rate" is just absolutely predatory and immoral.
I suspect a closer analogy would be the companies that will buy up one's extended time settlement by offering a lump sum. or paying cash to someone with a potential claim in exchange for payback for a larger amount if and when there is a settlement or judgment. I guess the latter is most similar.
If there is case law regarding anyone challenging the above it could be instructive for the NIL payback situation here.
Again, the idea is that it wasn’t a loan at all. BLA paid him cash (in exchange for a few autographs and a social media post) understanding that he may not make the NFL. Shoot, Gibson could have taken that money, retired from college football, gotten his degree and had an excellent start to his adult life.
It just makes no sense for a college football player to take this deal. Theoretically, a lower-level baseball prospect could take the deal, and have the freedom to work out all offseason instead of substitute teaching or giving hitting lessons or working at a gym. BLA would have freed that player to maximize his playing potential, in exchange for a cut of his earnings if that player does make the big leagues. A college football player already has the freedom to work out more or less full time, and is only one rung from an NFL deal.
It was truly stupid for him to take the deal, but I can’t see how it’s illegal.
The autograph piece is a thinly veiled attempt to make this look like an NIL deal when in reality this is just one big usurious pay day loan scheme, as mentioned by a previous poster. A good lawyer with a fair minded judge can get this contract invalidated on those grounds.
I’m just about the leftiest lefty who ever leftied but, unless there was something inherently dishonest about the sales process (very difficult to prove), I think he’s a victim of his own stupidity here.
He didn’t need the money, and he took it. (And if he needed money, he didn’t need that much money.)
I assume there are banks out there that will issue personal loans for future likely millionaires.
Do you know anything about usury laws? As a banker I do. This does not pass the sniff test.
But there was no guaranteed repayment. If he didn’t ever cash a professional football check, he owed nothing. It was not a loan.
It was incredibly shortsighted for him to take the deal, but also his credit would have been totally unaffected if he never paid BLA (had he foregone an NFL career).
I think that PGA pro Tony Finau has recently been sued by a couple of guys who entered into similar agreements with him and his brother (who were at the time struggling pros appearing on one of those BIg Break shows on Golf Channel). Since receiving the $$, Tony has obviously gone on to make a boatload of money, while his brother not so much.
It may have been incredibly shortsighted for the young man to sign the deal, but on its face the arrangement appears to be an arms length transaction. The money provider takes the risk that the recipient will not pan out as a pro, and the player gets to be a PLAYA with a bunch of cash in his bank account while he's still in school.
It may have been incredibly shortsighted for the young man to sign the deal, but on its face the arrangement appears to be an arms length transaction. The money provider takes the risk that the recipient will not pan out as a pro, and the player gets to be a PLAYA with a bunch of cash in his bank account while he's still in school.
You can’t reach any definitive conclusions without seeing the fine print of the contract. My guess is that there was some sort of recourse built in if the kid decided to stop playing football of his own volition. The one thing that can be definitively said is that these type of deals are predatory and unethical. If The NCAA wants to retain any sort of credibility, they should not allow these type of arrangements under the NIL umbrella.
Again, do you think Fernando Tatis’ deal was predatory? He signed it younger, got a similar amount of cash, used that cushion to train and invest in himself, and got a $340 million contract.
I don’t know if he’s *happy* that he’ll pay BLA $30 million, but he viewed that cash as a way to invest in himself.
The same simply doesn’t apply for a college football player, who has state budgets and greasy boosters investing in them every day.
It’s way more interesting than discussing UTEP-NU anyway.
I wouldn't bet on it. They'll probably settle but there is a reason a lawyer happily took this case on.
Yeah, a huge advance to a barely 18 year old kid that is presented as NIL seems to fall under the definition of predatory lending.
Give me a break. A 20 year old kid, hard up for money with likely little to no representation is presented with a predatory lending offer under the guise of this being an NIL opportunity sanctioned by the NCAA. Heck, 75% of the U.S adult population and probably half the posters on this board would be gullible enough to take this offer under similar circumstances.
Here’s the Finau story. I had never heard of Tony Finau, because even when I want to watch golf, it’s the perrrrrfect nap background noise.
My favorite sentence: “It is not the same 20% (plaintiff 1) claims he is due.”
Everyone involved in the Finau case, except for 16-year-old Tony, appears to be super rich.
Latest
-
01
Wildcat Report
Notebook: Chip Kelly assesses his offense at halfway point of fall camp
-
02
NIL
Northwestern's Mark Jackson: New Ryan Field can put Wildcats in 'new stratosphere' of revenue generation
-
03
Wildcat Report
Ten Questions: 7. Will the Cats be better in the red zone?
-
04
Edgy Tim
Osterhues is a name to watch
-
05
Rivals
Nation's No. 3 OT Cannon Zubeck maps out busy fall as top contenders emerge