NEW: House Settlement KILLS BYU, SAVES Utah, How Revised NIL Laws Shake Up the Holy War, Big 12

カートのアイテムが多すぎます

ご購入は五十タイトルがカートに入っている場合のみです。

カートに追加できませんでした。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました

ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました

NEW: House Settlement KILLS BYU, SAVES Utah, How Revised NIL Laws Shake Up the Holy War, Big 12

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

このコンテンツについて

The landmark House v. NCAA antitrust settlement, which has received final approval, is indeed poised to fundamentally reshape the NIL landscape. This transformation could create a scenario where schools that relied less on massive, external NIL collectives (like Utah) find themselves in a more level, or even advantageous, position compared to those that leveraged large collectives (like BYU is perceived to have).Here's why this shift is likely:The Core Change: Direct University Payments (and the $20.5M Cap)The most significant aspect of the House settlement is that, starting July 1, 2025, universities themselves can directly pay athletes for their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, up to an initial annual cap of approximately $20.5 million per school. This money will come directly from the school's general athletic revenue, primarily media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships.How this "Hurts" Schools with Large, External NIL Collectives (Like BYU):Diminished Role of Collectives: The initial NIL era (post-July 2021) saw a "Wild West" where external collectives, funded by boosters and donors, became the primary vehicles for compensating athletes, often blurring the lines into "pay-for-play" for recruiting and retention. These collectives operated largely outside university control.The "Hurt": With schools now directly paying athletes from their own revenue streams, the immediate need for external collectives to provide large sums to current athletes is expected to decrease significantly. Donors who previously contributed to collectives may now be encouraged to donate directly to the athletic department to fund the university's portion of the $20.5 million cap.BYU's Situation: BYU has reportedly had a robust and effective collective ecosystem, with significant donor support. While precise figures are hard to verify, BYU's collective efforts have been seen as quite aggressive and successful in attracting talent, especially in football and men's basketball. The "hurt" for BYU isn't a lack of funds, but rather a shift in the mechanism of payment. A large, well-funded collective operating independently now faces the reality that the university is taking over much of the direct compensation role. The challenge for BYU's collective will be to redefine its purpose – perhaps focusing on actual NIL deals with local businesses, post-eligibility benefits, or specific charitable initiatives, rather than simply being a direct player compensation fund.Fair Market Value (FMV) Scrutiny: The settlement mandates that any third-party NIL deals (those still done outside the university's direct payment system) exceeding $600 must go through a clearinghouse (managed by Deloitte) and be reviewed for "fair market value."The "Hurt": This new scrutiny directly targets the "pay-for-play" deals that collectives often facilitated. If a collective was giving a player, for example, $500,000 for a social media post that would typically be worth $50,000, that deal could now be flagged and potentially disallowed. Schools with collectives that heavily relied on such inflated or non-transparent deals may find their previous strategies untenable.Pressure to Fund the Cap from University Budgets: Even if a school had a thriving collective, it now faces a new, mandatory $20.5 million annual expense that must be funded from university revenue. This is a significant budget line item that wasn't there before. For schools that relied heavily on external collective funding to stay competitive, they now need to ensure their internal athletic department budget can handle this new, direct cost.How this "Benefits" Schools with Smaller, External NIL Collectives (Like Utah):Leveling the Playing Field (Financially):Utah's Situation: While Utah certainly has NIL collectives (e.g., Crimson Collective, Who Rocks the House Collective), it's generally perceived to have operated at a smaller or more targeted scale than some of the top-tier collectives nationally, or compared to the perceived aggressive efforts of BYU's system in certain instances.The "Benefit": The $20.5 million cap effectively puts a ceiling on what any university can directly pay its athletes. For schools like Utah, who might not have had a collective raising $20+ million annually, the settlement provides a new, consistent, and guaranteed revenue stream from the conference that they can now allocate directly to athletes. This allows them to immediately compete at the same maximum direct payment level as schools with historically larger collective budgets.Utah's AD Mark Harlan has already stated, "We are all-in on investing up to the maximum allowable in revenue share, which is approximately $20.5 million for 2025-26, though we are finalizing our plans for how the revenue will be shared." This demonstrates their immediate commitment to leveraging the new system, potentially closing any perceived gap in NIL spending that existed before.Reduced Reliance on External Fundraising Pressures:...