More like loan sharking. You can get better terms from the mob.Compensation? This is more like a loan than compensation.
It’s called being poor and desperate. Not everybody comes into the world having won the gene pool lottery.OMG. How could anyone be that financially illiterate?
What? He’s a professional athlete making millions of dollars. He hit the gene pool lottery.It’s called being poor and desperate. Not everybody comes into the world having won the gene pool lottery.
I dunno Jack, not everyone has your wherewithal apparentlyOMG. How could anyone be that financially illiterate?
I doubt he received more than 250-300k after taxes and fees.To strengthen his case I assume his attorney advised him to pay back the close to half a million he was given
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.To strengthen his case I assume his attorney advised him to pay back the close to half a million he was given
I believe the premise of the lawsuit is related to whether the contract is invalid as it violates certain statues.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 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?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.
… because he signed a contract?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?
Does the NCAA allow contracts for compensation OTHER than for name, image, and likeness?… because he signed a contract?
Aren’t half of our posters lawyers? Can anyone clarify if this will hold up?
That’s an interesting take and depending how the lawsuit is worded, I could see Dexter’s side arguing that point.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?
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.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.")
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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Do you know anything about usury laws? As a banker I do. This does not pass the sniff test.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.
But there was no guaranteed repayment. If he didn’t ever cash a professional football check, he owed nothing. It was not a loan.Do you know anything about usury laws? As a banker I do. This does not pass the sniff test.
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.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).
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.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.
I wouldn't bet on it. They'll probably settle but there is a reason a lawyer happily took this case on.Guys, it is called Big League ADVANCE.
Sucks , but he'll probably have to pay them
The kid should be able to read, he supposedly had a college degree for god sake!It’s called being poor and desperate. Not everybody comes into the world having won the gene pool lottery.
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.I wouldn't bet on it. They'll probably settle but there is a reason a lawyer happily took this case on.
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.The kid should be able to read, he supposedly had a college degree for god sake!
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.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.