TL;DR - the accounting major working at Deloitte may be the messiah in restoring sanity to NIL/college football. An analyst at Deloitte is going to determine how much a Caleb Downs type athlete gets paid going forward.
The best part of the very soon to be approved House Settlement is the establishment of a 3rd party clearinghouse to approve NIL deals. Future NIL deals will have to be consistent with Supreme Court ruling that it can’t be pay for play schemes. Future NIL deals will need to be approved, in advance, consistent with the true market value (determined by the clearinghouse) benefiting those businesses paying for name, image, and likeness of the athlete. It is no wonder Nico tried to cash in ahead of the settlement. I also expect many colleges (smaller schools) will drop their sports programs as they can no longer afford it.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...nt-over-roster-limits-sets-hard-deadline/amp/
1. External Review and Fairness: The settlement mandates that the clearinghouse review NIL deals, ensuring that they are legitimate and not just attempts to circumvent salary caps. This includes vetting deals of more than $600.
2. Fair Market Value: The clearinghouse will assess whether NIL deals are within a reasonable range of compensation, ensuring that athletes are being paid fairly for their name, image, and likeness. Estimates will be developed by the clearinghouse to determine things like how much an athlete’s NIL is likely to increase a business’ profitability. The Fair Market Value calculations will likely be significantly lower than NIL deals currently in place. The clearinghouse has contracted with auditing giant Deloitte to review and approve booster NIL deals and decide whether each is a legitimate endorsement contract or a veiled attempt to circumvent the salary cap.
3. Impact on Collectives: The external review process and the emphasis on fair market value are expected to reduce the influence of booster-funded collectives, who have played a significant role in NIL deals - because the fair market value, established by the clearinghouse, will place a significant cap on NIL deals.
4. Enforcement and Compliance: The settlement also includes provisions for tracking and reporting NIL deals, along with a new enforcement entity to oversee the rules.
5. Revenue Sharing and Direct Payments: The settlement also establishes a revenue-sharing model, allowing schools to directly pay athletes a portion of their athletic revenue. While there's a cap on the amount of revenue schools can share (initially $20.5 million), athletes are still permitted to engage in independent NIL deals - which will be much lower than currently in place.
In essence, the House v. NCAA settlement aims to create a more transparent and regulated environment for NIL deals, while also ensuring that athletes are fairly compensated for their name, image, and likeness.
So, going forward, if the law firm of Morgan & Morgan wanted to pay Brock Bowers, while still at UGA, to have his face on a billboard on I-85, the $ amount of Brock’s NIL deal would have to be based on the fair market value impact on Morgan & Morgan’s business, financially (determined by the clearinghouse) - meaning, an estimate will need to be calculated to determine how much Brock’s billboard image will likely increase M&Ms revenue. Most importantly, these NIL deals will need to be approved, IN ADVANCE, by the clearinghouse and Deloitte, before an athlete like Brock can be paid. So, if Ohio State does a last minute escalation $ of an NIL deal like they did with Caleb Downs, the Downs family would no longer have certainty that his deal will get approved by Deloitte.
The other implication is that star quarterbacks are going to get far better NIL $ deals than a star offensive lineman. Because, the market value of an offensive lineman’s image (say Broderick Thomas) to a business’ revenue uplift will typically be substantially lower than an equally talented Aaron Murray, while they were at UGA.
Other factors considered by the clearinghouse and Deloitte, in determining the fair market value of an athlete’s NIL value to a business, will include the athlete's performance, social media following, and the market where their school is located.
There is also likely huge downward impact on NIL $ fair market value for high school recruits. Deloitte’s fair market value calculations will be more biased towards demonstrated performance versus potential performance. A high school kid like Jared Curtis is virtually unknown to folks that don’t follow college recruiting. Accordingly, the fair market value to a business signing him to an NIL deal will be much lower under the new House Settlement.
The best part of the very soon to be approved House Settlement is the establishment of a 3rd party clearinghouse to approve NIL deals. Future NIL deals will have to be consistent with Supreme Court ruling that it can’t be pay for play schemes. Future NIL deals will need to be approved, in advance, consistent with the true market value (determined by the clearinghouse) benefiting those businesses paying for name, image, and likeness of the athlete. It is no wonder Nico tried to cash in ahead of the settlement. I also expect many colleges (smaller schools) will drop their sports programs as they can no longer afford it.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...nt-over-roster-limits-sets-hard-deadline/amp/
1. External Review and Fairness: The settlement mandates that the clearinghouse review NIL deals, ensuring that they are legitimate and not just attempts to circumvent salary caps. This includes vetting deals of more than $600.
2. Fair Market Value: The clearinghouse will assess whether NIL deals are within a reasonable range of compensation, ensuring that athletes are being paid fairly for their name, image, and likeness. Estimates will be developed by the clearinghouse to determine things like how much an athlete’s NIL is likely to increase a business’ profitability. The Fair Market Value calculations will likely be significantly lower than NIL deals currently in place. The clearinghouse has contracted with auditing giant Deloitte to review and approve booster NIL deals and decide whether each is a legitimate endorsement contract or a veiled attempt to circumvent the salary cap.
3. Impact on Collectives: The external review process and the emphasis on fair market value are expected to reduce the influence of booster-funded collectives, who have played a significant role in NIL deals - because the fair market value, established by the clearinghouse, will place a significant cap on NIL deals.
4. Enforcement and Compliance: The settlement also includes provisions for tracking and reporting NIL deals, along with a new enforcement entity to oversee the rules.
5. Revenue Sharing and Direct Payments: The settlement also establishes a revenue-sharing model, allowing schools to directly pay athletes a portion of their athletic revenue. While there's a cap on the amount of revenue schools can share (initially $20.5 million), athletes are still permitted to engage in independent NIL deals - which will be much lower than currently in place.
In essence, the House v. NCAA settlement aims to create a more transparent and regulated environment for NIL deals, while also ensuring that athletes are fairly compensated for their name, image, and likeness.
So, going forward, if the law firm of Morgan & Morgan wanted to pay Brock Bowers, while still at UGA, to have his face on a billboard on I-85, the $ amount of Brock’s NIL deal would have to be based on the fair market value impact on Morgan & Morgan’s business, financially (determined by the clearinghouse) - meaning, an estimate will need to be calculated to determine how much Brock’s billboard image will likely increase M&Ms revenue. Most importantly, these NIL deals will need to be approved, IN ADVANCE, by the clearinghouse and Deloitte, before an athlete like Brock can be paid. So, if Ohio State does a last minute escalation $ of an NIL deal like they did with Caleb Downs, the Downs family would no longer have certainty that his deal will get approved by Deloitte.
The other implication is that star quarterbacks are going to get far better NIL $ deals than a star offensive lineman. Because, the market value of an offensive lineman’s image (say Broderick Thomas) to a business’ revenue uplift will typically be substantially lower than an equally talented Aaron Murray, while they were at UGA.
Other factors considered by the clearinghouse and Deloitte, in determining the fair market value of an athlete’s NIL value to a business, will include the athlete's performance, social media following, and the market where their school is located.
There is also likely huge downward impact on NIL $ fair market value for high school recruits. Deloitte’s fair market value calculations will be more biased towards demonstrated performance versus potential performance. A high school kid like Jared Curtis is virtually unknown to folks that don’t follow college recruiting. Accordingly, the fair market value to a business signing him to an NIL deal will be much lower under the new House Settlement.
Last edited:
