The NCAA is weighing a rule that would require that the incoming athletes of Division I reveal the agreements of name, image and likeness of the secondary school or junior to the university null Go Clearinghouse established under the agreement of the house of $ 2.8 billion.
The athletes would inform all non -institutional agreements dating from the first day of their third year of high school. Junior university transfers would report agreements from the date of initial registration at a two -year university. All reports of previous agreements are due to the Sports Commission of the University of Registration.
Null compensation at the secondary level has expanded rapidly in recent years. At least 40 states allow high school students to win money with the status of their celebrity. Alabama, Michigan and Ohio are among the states that have strict restrictions, as well as Texas, which prohibits athletes under 17.
The proposed rule is derived from the settlement of the Chamber, which allows effective institutions on July 1 to share millions with athletes directly, but requires informing any third party agreement that exceeds $ 600. Nil Go, developed by Deloitte and supervised by the CSC, evaluates whether the agreements reflect the fair market value and have a valid commercial purpose.
The potential rule aims to avoid payment agreements for game between possible athletes and reinforcements or entities affiliated with school. The exact consequences of not complying, but lost eligibility are still a possibility are still determining.
“It is not clear what the discipline would be for athletes or third parties that violate these rules, just as it is not completely clear what the discipline for current university athletes will be,” said Gabe Feldman, sports law director at the University of Tulane. “The emphasis certainly seems to be unduly damaging the athlete and the team, while in the past, if an athlete had received an inappropriate benefit, there could be significant repercussions.”
A wave of tide demands could come from a new rule, but according to Feldman, the NCAA tends to like its probabilities, a recurring theme that provides the approval of the agreement.
“The idea was that, given the amount of money that athletes would gain under these new rules, very few athletes would have incentives to sue,” said Feldman. “Although there is still the risk of antitrust litigation, the risk is much less because athletes are obtaining such significant compensation. But there is no guarantee that athletes cannot demand.”
The language in the house settlement kept the door open for future rules proposals, including “specifying that the NCAA and/or the defendants of the conference prohibit null payments by associated entities or individuals (individual or collectively) to current or potential athlete students.” But that can leave lagoons.
“The question remains, if an athlete is going to have these expectations once they enroll in a university, do you only encourage reinforcements and groups to pay these athletes before they register?” Feldman said.
