 |
|
NIL is what the parties say it is.
Posted on: May 4, 2022 at 15:39:27 CT
TigerMook MU
Posts:
3132
Member For:
26.25 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Not sure how to get that through to you. It doesn't matter. If someone is paying for an athlete's name, image, or likeness, then they are. There's nothing in the statute that says that there must be FMV. At all. It doesn't matter in the least.
It's NIL related if the purchaser says it is. If I testify that I give Sam Horn $1M to sell his autographed picture, then I paid him $1M for his NIL. There's no definition to the contrary, so the statute speaks for itself. It's pretty clear and the NCAA or Mizzou isn't going to win in the defense of the player's lawsuit because the amount wasn't FMV or was de facto pay to play.
FMV doesn't matter here- it might in other states and in their statutes, but not in Missouri.
It's NIL related if the purchaser says it is. If I testify that I give Sam Horn $1M to sell his autographed picture, then I paid him $1M for his NIL. There's no definition to the contrary, so the statute speaks for itself. It's pretty clear and the NCAA or Mizzou isn't going to win in the defense of the player's lawsuit because the amount wasn't FMV or was de facto pay to play.
FMV doesn't matter here- it might in other states and in their statutes, but not in Missouri.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
NIL is what the parties say it is. - TigerMook MU - 5/4 15:39:27
-