Revamped Missouri NIL Legislation

[HoosierPal]

Pending Gov Parsons signing the amendment passed by the House and Senate, Missouri coaches and athletic department officials, among others, will be able to 'sit at the table' during NIL negotiations. The amendment allows coaches and school officials to “identify, create, facilitate, negotiate, support, enable, or otherwise assist” with those NIL opportunities for college athletes.  This will parallel what Colorado, Texas and Arkansas, among others, are allowing.

What is interesting, is that High School athletes who sign with an in-state school will also be allowed to participate in the NIL game earning endorsement money.  That means in-state high school basketball recruits can begin earning NIL money when they sign with an in-state school as early as November of their senior year during the early signing period.

The wait and see game will be after the HS athlete collects his NIL $, what happens (and it will) when he or she de-commits from the in-state school during the summer.

Here is the full article: https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/missouri-lawmakers-revise-states-nil-law-expand-college-coaches-role-in-negotiations/article_56ee420a-ee95-11ed-bbf8-077630df774d.html

[Taj79]

So besides all the other stuff they already do, coaches now have to be agents for their kids? With some close coordination, why not let that up to Troy Robertson and the other NIL funding outlet?  And this is still a joke ..... it's just negotiating which local company will pay to have the kid come to the school.  Pay for play.  If I were writing the NIL contract, I'd have in bold type DECOMMIT AND YOU PAY IT ALL BACK IN FULL.  This has nothing to do with Name, Image and Likeness.  Call it what it is .... PAY FOR PLAY/ENROLLMENT.  

For the extra duty now imposed on him, maybe we do need to bump up Ford's salary by another million per.  

[TheA_Bomb]

I think the signing for an in state school as the limiting factor as to whether you can collect NIL funds will be found unenforceable.   The Supreme Court ruled that athletes can make money on NIL so why does it matter where they are going to college?  Isn't there an interstate commerce rule that is applicable here? So a state can not prohibit a person from making money in another state. 

[BilliesBy40]

30 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

I think the signing for an in state school as the limiting factor as to whether you can collect NIL funds will be found unenforceable.   The Supreme Court ruled that athletes can make money on NIL so why does it matter where they are going to college?  Isn't there an interstate commerce rule that is applicable here? So a state can not prohibit a person from making money in another state. 

It would be a good law school exam question, that’s for sure. In full disclosure, I haven’t read the Missouri legislation yet, but I think it would be challenging to prove it is truly discriminatory if it doesn’t actually prohibit the high school student from collecting NIL dollars if they are fine forfeiting high school athletics eligibility.

[Lord Elrond]

33 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

I think the signing for an in state school as the limiting factor as to whether you can collect NIL funds will be found unenforceable.   The Supreme Court ruled that athletes can make money on NIL so why does it matter where they are going to college?  Isn't there an interstate commerce rule that is applicable here? So a state can not prohibit a person from making money in another state. 

You raise an interesting point.  The contracts are for Name, Image and Likeness, so why does it matter where they go to college, or even if the grab the money and then go enroll elsewhere for more money?  And why wouldn’t interstate commerce laws apply?  I’m sure at some point we’ll see some really interesting lawsuits in the courts….

[HoosierPal]

2 hours ago, TheA_Bomb said:

I think the signing for an in state school as the limiting factor as to whether you can collect NIL funds will be found unenforceable.   The Supreme Court ruled that athletes can make money on NIL so why does it matter where they are going to college?  Isn't there an interstate commerce rule that is applicable here? So a state can not prohibit a person from making money in another state. 

I have only read the PD article and not the amendment.  From the article, it does not mention any prohibition of Missouri HS athletes obtaining NIL $ from signing with out of state schools.  That should be up to the other state's rules to determine if it is allowed.  And I don't see how Missouri, or any other state, can have any authority over the other state's HS athletes for NIL issues. 

It looks like there are now 30 (with MO) states allowing HS athletes to obtain NIL $.

Use the interactive map:  https://news.scorebooklive.com/national/2023/05/03/high-school-nil-rules-in-every-state-permitted-prohibited-or-under-consideration  (published May 3)

[HoosierPal]

If anyone is interested in taking a nap, this will help.  Here is the amendment discussed in this thread.  The High School piece is on page 12.  It only discusses Missouri HS athletes and Missouri colleges.  Nothing about signing out of state.

https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills231/amendpdf/1211S10.01F.pdf

[Pistol]

12 hours ago, TheA_Bomb said:

I think the signing for an in state school as the limiting factor as to whether you can collect NIL funds will be found unenforceable.   The Supreme Court ruled that athletes can make money on NIL so why does it matter where they are going to college?  Isn't there an interstate commerce rule that is applicable here? So a state can not prohibit a person from making money in another state. 

I had the same thought. It allows HS athletes to begin collecting on an NIL deal if they're going to a college in state, I don't see where it can prohibit them from doing the same if they're going out of state.

I'm really wondering how the provisions around using logos and allowing coaches to negotiate deals directly will actually work up against NCAA rules. Or how FERPA is actually going to override the public nature of deals done through 501(c)3 collectives. It seems clear that there are going to be lawsuits everywhere.

Clearly this law is being drafted to help Mizzou, but I guess SLU could benefit. I'm just skeptical how these things will play out in reality (given the inevitable legal battles) and I assume all states will end up in the same place as each other within a couple years, not wanting their schools to be left behind.

[gobillsgo]

13 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

Pending Gov Parsons signing the amendment passed by the House and Senate, Missouri coaches and athletic department officials, among others, will be able to 'sit at the table' during NIL negotiations. The amendment allows coaches and school officials to “identify, create, facilitate, negotiate, support, enable, or otherwise assist” with those NIL opportunities for college athletes.  This will parallel what Colorado, Texas and Arkansas, among others, are allowing.

What is interesting, is that High School athletes who sign with an in-state school will also be allowed to participate in the NIL game earning endorsement money.  That means in-state high school basketball recruits can begin earning NIL money when they sign with an in-state school as early as November of their senior year during the early signing period.

The wait and see game will be after the HS athlete collects his NIL $, what happens (and it will) when he or she de-commits from the in-state school during the summer.

Here is the full article: https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/missouri-lawmakers-revise-states-nil-law-expand-college-coaches-role-in-negotiations/article_56ee420a-ee95-11ed-bbf8-077630df774d.html

Are we considered an in-state school for MO, or does that only cover public institutions?

[Lord Elrond]

1 hour ago, Pistol said:

I had the same thought. It allows HS athletes to begin collecting on an NIL deal if they're going to a college in state, I don't see where it can prohibit them from doing the same if they're going out of state.

I'm really wondering how the provisions around using logos and allowing coaches to negotiate deals directly will actually work up against NCAA rules. Or how FERPA is actually going to override the public nature of deals done through 501(c)3 collectives. It seems clear that there are going to be lawsuits everywhere.

Clearly this law is being drafted to help Mizzou, but I guess SLU could benefit. I'm just skeptical how these things will play out in reality (given the inevitable legal battles) and I assume all states will end up in the same place as each other within a couple years, not wanting their schools to be left behind.

Sooner or later national legislation seems to be needed to keep it level for everyone

[HoosierPal]

2 hours ago, gobillsgo said:

Are we considered an in-state school for MO, or does that only cover public institutions?

Refer to the posted amendment, Page 1, line 18.  "Postsecondary educational institution in this state" is defined.  The term is used on page 12.

[Old guy]

One issue that has to be kept in mind when discussing NILs is the amount of money available for paying NILs. It is simple, NILs cannot be paid if there is no money, or not enough money, available. 

[Soderball]

It's good legislation to have, as other states will allow for this. No reason to have limitations that other states don't.

 

On 5/9/2023 at 7:19 PM, Taj79 said:

So besides all the other stuff they already do, coaches now have to be agents for their kids? With some close coordination, why not let that up to Troy Robertson and the other NIL funding outlet?  And this is still a joke ..... it's just negotiating which local company will pay to have the kid come to the school.  Pay for play.  If I were writing the NIL contract, I'd have in bold type DECOMMIT AND YOU PAY IT ALL BACK IN FULL.  This has nothing to do with Name, Image and Likeness.  Call it what it is .... PAY FOR PLAY/ENROLLMENT.  

For the extra duty now imposed on him, maybe we do need to bump up Ford's salary by another million per.  

Recruiting is about NIL $$ now. You are living in billiken_roy world. This is pro athletics. Deal with it.

Honestly we likely need to start reducing coach salaries as their jobs will be less about recruiting. We need more talent scouts and more money to sign contracts for players.

[billiken_roy]

5 hours ago, Soderball said:

Recruiting is about NIL $$ now. You are living in billiken_roy world. This is pro athletics. Deal with it.

Honestly we likely need to start reducing coach salaries as their jobs will be less about recruiting. We need more talent scouts and more money to sign contracts for players.

Not sure what you mean by "living in billiken_roy world".

Im the one the last month saying we need to go in big-time as $500,000 is going to be peanut.   

I am the one saying we need to look to spend way above the A10 norm.   

So please what exactly are you talking about?