OT: State of Ohio Passes NIL Bill Allowing Colleges to Pay Athletes

Football
1

Article in the Columbus Dispatch. Key points:

  • Allows universities to pay student-athletes for their name, image and likeness.
  • Each school will have a cap of about $21.5 million to spend on college athletes for the first year, pending approval of the federal settlement.
  • Student-athletes would not be employees of the university.
  • Allows student-athletes to hire an agent or attorney to represent them in NIL deals with the university.
  • Prohibits a student-athlete from using the university’s facilities or logos for brand deals without the school’s approval.
  • Keeps NIL deals confidential and not subject to public records laws.
  • Prevents anyone younger than 18 from entering into a NIL contract.

NIL changes were contained in House Bill 315. This Bill has many unrelated provisions. Truly a Christmas Tree bill, fitting for this time of year.

2

Will the State of Texas do the same, and if they do, then will it be like PUF where only UT and aTm get access to the funds?

2 Likes
3

OHIO U will now be a power…lol

Go get em Big 12

2 Likes
4

Probably

5

.Poo-poo.

:rage:

6

How does that even correlate

NIL and PUF

7

It shouldn’t, but it wouldn’t shock me if our own legislature passed a similar bill, except that it would give way bigger NIL funds to UT and aTm than to…let’s say…UH.

Not unlike PUF!!!

8

Well that’s a separate issue because the PUF was never intended to be used on athletics

UT and A&M will always benefit over other schools, and I’m sure the PUF frees up capital, but the bottom line doesn’t really change

9

Will it be the same with NIL?

Of course, it’s a different issue, but may indeed prove to be ANALOGOUS, in the manner and means that I described.

10

I’m confused to your argument

The state isnt funding NIL

1 Like
11

Ah, I see.

If that’s true, then it’s a bit different.

I was thinking that this was, in effect, an NIL spending bill.

12

How is the state not funding it if it tells Ohio State (funded by the state) they can spend 22 million on NIL?

1 Like
13

I can only assume it means that they can just raise and utilize that amount as a maximum from various sources.

That seems strange; like you, I was under the impression that it was creating a pot of money in that amount for schools to use, but I guess that other interpretation is possible.

14

What is athletic revenue? Here you go:

Athletic Department revenue includes event tickets and admission fees, game guarantees, TV, media, licensing, advertising, sponsorships and royalty rights, bowl game, NCAA and conference distributions and all related revenues.

Revenue does not include direct or indirect school support, student fees or unrecompensed (i.e. charitable) contributions to the athletic department from alumni and boosters.

15

I think he means schools using their money to pay their players…the state might give more funds to the 2 P2 Texas schools

1 Like
16

I don’t see how this would be legally possible

Read above the red

image
image1170×602 173 KB

17

There are always ways “move the funds” to get what they want.

18

I’m saying our own state could pass a bill completely separate from PUF that provides schools with funds for NIL…but which, like PUF, would involve UT and aTm getting a much bigger pot of money than, let’s say, UH.

No one is suggesting that PUF funds would be used. We are suggesting that the state might make new appropriations for such funds, and in a way that is more advantageous to UT and aTm and less advantageous to UH.

19

Ok gotcha

I mean I guess that’s possible, but I just don’t understand how the state can bypass an NCAA ruling

In fact what’s confusing is that the NCAA mandated a $23 Million NIL cap, and this Ohio ruling by has a lower cap

20

Imagine if TX passed a bill that gave the $23 million max in NIL appropriations for UT and aTm, but provided only a $10 million max for UH.

Things like that, while only hypothetical at this point, still scare me, given how we’ve seen PUF and other things go.