NCAA to Allow Players to be Compensated for their Names, Likenesses, and Images

[Burt Macklin 19,020]

1 hour ago, Hook1997 said:

The Alabama one says the exact same things…..    It’s seems a lot of people have heard how restrictive Texas’s is vs others without knowing what’s different, not just you.    

 

1 hour ago, Hook1997 said:

Other then the waiver to use team logo I guess but can’t they still just say, with (name) Texas Running back.  I actually haven’t seen any yet that used a school logo on a endorsement.   

I’m aware of what’s different.
Not having an allowance for using the team’s IP is a big deal. It means no profit sharing on player jerseys, no compensation for appearance in an NCAA Football video game.  Players can’t wear any team gear, do the hook’em sign, use photographs of them playing, or even use the color burnt orange (according to UT compliance) in NIL sponsorships. It also takes away opportunities for Texas players to be compensated for official UT sponsors using their name, image or likeness. 

The complete prohibition on use of school property or IP is a huge difference between the two statutes. And most other states allow use of school IP as long as the players gets permission, so Texas is definitely an outlier. 
 

Regarding alcohol, etc., the Bama bill prevents that, but most other states don’t, so it’s another way the Texas bill is a restrictive outlier. From what I’ve seen we have the most restrictive NIL law that’s been passed so far by a pretty wide margin, and every indication is that UT intends to follow the statute strictly so these are serious limitations for our players. 

[JMFP 1,120]

Yeah I dunno what either law says but Saban said his QB is already making almost 7 figures and hasn't played a down yet while Texas players are getting themselves put on Axe cans for free...

[ouflak 60]

Looks like Ohio State worked out a merchandising revenue sharing deal with the players as has North Carolina. I hope OU follows suit soon. Sorry you guys are having to deal with the crazy strict laws, but I do think it will work itself out. No way UT is going to sit back and let the rest of the college football world just buy all of the best players away.

[BurntOrange&White 39,930]

4 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

Other then the waiver to use team logo I guess but can’t they still just say, with (name) Texas Running back.  I actually haven’t seen any yet that used a school logo on a endorsement.   

They're not even letting them use school colors....



 

[BurntOrange&White 39,930]

Meanwhile Georgia QB is signing jerseys and memorabilia....

https://brobible.com/sports/article/georgia-football-quarterback-jt-daniels-nil/

 

 

[Hook1997 5,351]

50 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

They're not even letting them use school colors....



 

It says licensed merchandise nothing about school colors.  

 

46 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Meanwhile Georgia QB is signing jerseys and memorabilia....

https://brobible.com/sports/article/georgia-football-quarterback-jt-daniels-nil/

 

 

Texas guidelines say can’t use licensed merchandise in a endorsement, not about what they are signing at autograph signings.  
On the booze argument, how many pro athletes even endorse alcohol brands? Not many, I don’t think companies are going to rush to sign a ton college athletes.  They also have to be 21 so that’s even relevant for 1 maybe 2 years they are in college   

I just think it’s all new and things will be changed if it is a huge disadvantage, but I don’t think we are so far behind that the sky is falling with what they can do now.  The one that needs changed quick is revenue sharing on jersey sales.  

Edited August 4, 2021 by Hook1997

[BurntOrange&White 39,930]

28 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

It says licensed merchandise nothing about school colors.  

 

Texas guidelines say can’t use licensed merchandise in a endorsement, not about what they are signing at autograph signings.  
On the booze argument, how many pro athletes even endorse alcohol brands? Not many, I don’t think companies are going to rush to sign a ton college athletes.  They also have to be 21 so that’s even relevant for 1 maybe 2 years they are in college   

I just think it’s all new and things will be changed if it is a huge disadvantage, but I don’t think we are so far behind that the sky is falling with what they can do now.  The one that needs changed quick is revenue sharing on jersey sales.  

Yes and I’m telling you the school isn’t even letting them use school colors. 
 

and the Texas guidelines are a huge issue compared Oregon, Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan. 
 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,775]

7 hours ago, Burt Macklin said:

Also, the Texas bill has a lot more small exceptions that make things tougher, like not allowing players to have sponsorships from alcohol, tobacco, or gambling companies. That's a lot of potential revenue right there. 

I’m pretty sure that’s universal. Can you not see the rationale behind that? What about cannabis growers? Should a college athlete make money advertising their favorite strain of marijuana? What about guns? What about steroids? What about massage parlors? What about legal brothels in Nevada? Should an athlete at UNLV get paid to endorse his favorite whore house?

[cactusflinthead 27,598]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m pretty sure that’s universal. Can you not see the rationale behind that? What about cannabis growers? Should a college athlete make money advertising their favorite strain of marijuana? What about guns? What about steroids? What about massage parlors? What about legal brothels in Nevada? Should an athlete at UNLV get paid to endorse his favorite whore house?

Magic of the marketplace baby. The ad copy practically writes itself.

 

Real Trojans use ribbed.

KY is for Kentucky

Chances went up in smoke at the Leafly pick of the week.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,775]

48 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yes and I’m telling you the school isn’t even letting them use school colors.
 

and the Texas guidelines are a huge issue compared Oregon, Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan. 

I haven’t really followed all the different rules. The first thing I saw on the local news was some current Buckeye players doing a signing event at an apparel and memorabilia store like I’ve seen done by recent graduates in the past. I’ve only been to one personally. That was for Mike Doss after the 2002 national championship and I paid $20 for two autographs. I brought my own items for him to sign but a lot of people bought helmets or jerseys or other merchandise at the store for him to sign. That’s kind of the whole point. Surely that’s allowed, right? I felt kind of dirty after that experience and that’s the extent of my collection of autographs from athletes. I’ve gotten a few from musicians but didn’t pay for them. (I also have an autographed Polaroid of a topless Nina Hartley sitting on my lap and I didn’t pay for that either other than tipping her a dollar while she was on stage and saying something she found charming.)

I’ve heard that current players get a cut of jersey sales if someone buys one with their number and with their name on the back. Is that not allowed for the Longhorns? I’m not a jersey guy and if I was then I’d never get one with a name on it. What if I just wanted a #36 jersey? That was worn by Marcus Marek. And then Chris Spielman. Later by Brian Rolle. Currently by K'Vaughan Pope (who? exactly). Suppose I wanted a #36 jersey with Spielman’s name on the back. Would he get a cut? I don’t know. But if he didn’t then I’d expect he’d file a lawsuit to make sure he did.

 

[CooterBrown 18,003]

No way UT is going to sit back and let the rest of the college football world just buy all of the best players away.

We’ve done exactly that for decades. Same old shit.

[David Dennison 18,849]

1 hour ago, Hook1997 said:

It says licensed merchandise nothing about school colors.  

 

Texas guidelines say can’t use licensed merchandise in a endorsement, not about what they are signing at autograph signings.  
On the booze argument, how many pro athletes even endorse alcohol brands? Not many, I don’t think companies are going to rush to sign a ton college athletes.  They also have to be 21 so that’s even relevant for 1 maybe 2 years they are in college   

I just think it’s all new and things will be changed if it is a huge disadvantage, but I don’t think we are so far behind that the sky is falling with what they can do now.  The one that needs changed quick is revenue sharing on jersey sales.  

The problem with Texas is that we have to wait two years for any change to the NIL statute.

[BurntOrange&White 39,930]

I’m pretty sure Oregon has the most relaxed NIL laws. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by BurntOrange&White

[longhrnfan 61]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yes and I’m telling you the school isn’t even letting them use school colors. 
 

and the Texas guidelines are a huge issue compared Oregon, Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan. 
 

 

I've read the bill a couple times now, and I think there is enough grey to make licensing deals. I don't think its written particularly well. Regardless, I bet Rubio's bill is law before you know it. 

[longhrnfan 61]

This is the section at issue isn't it: 

(g)AAA student athlete participating in an intercollegiate athletic program at an institution to which this section applies: …

(2) may not enter into a contract for the use of the student athlete ’s name, image, or likeness if: …

(B)the compensation for the use of the student athlete ’s name, image, or likeness is provided: …

(iii) in exchange for property owned by the institution or for providing an endorsement while using intellectual property or other property owned by the institution or ...

[CastHorn 811]

Saw this on Twitter this morning. 

[David Dennison 18,849]

Something tells me we'll be dropping bags, no matter what our little slideshow says.

[BurntOrange&White 39,930]

we’re so fucked

[Jkwellborn 6,689]

They're not even letting them use school colors....



 

Whites pretty universal and maybe the players will decide to use the correct color of burnt orange

[HRSchenker 2,268]

They can't use the school colors due to trademark, yeah? 

[David Dennison 18,849]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

we’re so fucked

Texas is only fucked if it affects the bottom line. 

Mediocrity on the football field has yet to do that.

 

[RollLeft 5,040]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

we’re so fucked

Maybe so CDC, but that is not the perception.  From here it looks like you and Texas are far from on top.  Hey Texas you ok?

 

[David Dennison 18,849]

Texas is absolutely on the top in the one area that Texas cares about most.

This is known far and wide.

[RollLeft 5,040]

5 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yes and I’m telling you the school isn’t even letting them use school colors. 

and the Texas guidelines are a huge issue compared Oregon, Georgia, Ohio, and Michigan. 

That has been known since the day it became law in TX.  The issue is that CDC's plan thus far has been to wait for the NCAA to address the differences among the states instead of simply getting on the horn with people at the capitol asking them to amend the law to that which is most favorable to us in the immediate future.  I'm betting they think they are giving too much away too soon, not realizing the damn is no longer leaking its broken.  

[Valmy77 13,225]

I don't know if CDC has that kind of political clout. The President or BOR would be the ones who would have to get the lege to sort it out.

[utee94 15,805]

16 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I don't know if CDC has that kind of political clout. The President or BOR would be the ones who would have to get the lege to sort it out.

It's not a problem unique to UT.  Every other university in the state will be hamstrung by the same issues.  So it seems in this one area at least, legislators that are loyal to their Texas universities, should be united in attempting to gain the best possible advantages for their alma maters, relative to schools in other states.

Now, are they smart enough to realize that and work in concert with UT? Well...

 

 

 

[David Dennison 18,849]

What are the odds that the governor calls a special session before 2023 to work on amending the NIL statute?

[PantsTent 2,002]

Is it really "law"?  They going to start arresting athletes?  Fining universities?  Seems the bills were passed because the NCAA wasn't making any rules/guidelines.  They still aren't and likely never will.  So why not do whatever we want just like other universities?

 

[BurntOrange&White 39,930]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What are the odds that the governor calls a special session before 2023 to work on amending the NIL statute?

I think if Sharp and Eltife put their political prowess together it happens sooner rather than later. 

[David Dennison 18,849]

7 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I think if Sharp and Eltife put their political prowess together it happens sooner rather than later. 

Are you sure they want to?

[BurntOrange&White 39,930]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Are you sure they want to?

That I don’t know but it’s the only people I think that could make that push

[closetojumping 62,557]

Crossposting from the 2022 recruiting thread regarding the NIL work as it pertains to UT and our interests: 

A group of us have been working on a better understanding of NIL and Texas. What is it? What can and can't be done? How does the process work? What's the optimal solution? What can be done now? Etc. We've pulled together resources if someone is serious about learning more and not going to post or pass shit randomly on. This goes beyond the semi-anonymity of a bulletin board.

We've come far enough along that I can at least provide some informed thoughts and some direction. @immamac is going to provide a resource center or marketplace to help out. Here's the net-net ahead of that.

1) There's interest in building something long term that could bring players and money together every year into perpetuity. We've built up damned near a completed business plan on it and it's circulating beyond this board. The big problem is, someone would need to run it. They'd need to have a history of operating a company, experience, preferably, with UT and the AD, and a start-up background/connections. They'd also need to be an extrovert because of the nature of the beast on this one. I can't do it. I'm way out over my skis right now taking on other stuff and this is tipping me into a tumble if I go any further. Got a blueprint for someone who could do it, and likely access to capital, to boot. DM me if you know someone that might be a fit. Otherwise, this sits on the shelf until potentially forever, which is fine, I guess.

2) In the meantime, other shit can be done, leveraging the creative work and research that's already been done and some of it is just waiting there to be taken. Here's the thinking:

A) Agencies are entering the fray. Sports agencies and agents, marketing and ad agencies, you name it. They're more or less necessary. Sports agencies are building marketing arms, and they'll take care of the big names, but less than a sure thing is likely left in the cold. Hudson Card has an agent already. Montana Fouts has an agent. The big names aren't the worry. Anyway, we have access to an agency that anyone here could use. If you want to get money to players in any form, we could do that right now. We have boilerplate influencer/sponsor contracts, teams with digital, event & PR, social media, branding, etc., expertise. Feel free DM me. 

B) The process is as follows: company/entity reaches out to player directly, makes an offer and tenders a contract. Players signs contract. Contract goes through compliance. If approved, player lives up to deal in the contract and the player gets paid. If the nonsense with compliance gets fixed, this is all fine. The premise of the program trying to claim that burnt orange is in scope of what's off-limits is utter fucking bullshit and anyone claiming that up to Plonsky and Crystal Conte should be fucking fired if they attempt to continue to parrot that. Fucking wrong. 

C) Autographs don't have to go through compliance. Anyone can organically provide something for a player to sign and the player can then get paid. This is protected in the state legislation. So, if you take a napkin, or a jersey, or a woman in a tank top up to a player and pay him $1 or $1million to sign the napkin, jersey, or woman's cleavage, you can do it. 

D) There are over 50 use cases we've already worked through. We want to start putting them to use and show the credibility of them in action. We have access to players on every team within the Texas realm. We can reach whoever we need. If folks want to do something, let's discuss. Feel free to DM me.

E) Opendorse is trash and will take 15% of any deal conducted through it. The UT leadership in athletics sending players there to fend for themselves is fucking negligent and someone should be fired for their insouciance. There is nothing there for us or players to leverage. Ignore it as a resource or hope. 

F) A major recruitment right now has some ability to be influenced with NIL at Texas if something gets done. Specifically to the point about it not being an issue for Hudson Card or Bijan Robinson, both of whom will make well into the 6 figures this fall (this is confirmed), it's about other positions. In this case, if DBs at Texas are making bank, that puts the Texas NIL argument for this signing period up against anyone for at least one key target Texas is in danger of losing. 

Other entities are going to do what they can as well. Surly is working on something and mac or @RGBIII can feel free to elaborate. But yeah, pass the word, pass around the hat, whatever, shit can get done asap if people want to put their money where their mouths/keyboards have been up to now. DM me, DM @SydneyCarton, happy to help or point in directions. 

Sydney can post more on types of NIL use cases that anyone here can explore and we should. I'm tired of typing. 

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

21 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Yep. We are going to approach NIL in a way the powers that be have determined will make the University of Texas the most money possible while still appearing to be a school that places academics above athletics.

We're Texas.

 

I don't see where you're getting that.

The only marked difference between Texas' NIL law and other states is the athlete can't use institution trademarks along with any of his/her own NIL "work."

That doesn't make UT any money.  It maybe helps preserve their trademarks to some degree, but that doesn't make any additional money.

Universities seem mostly cut out of the NIL process, except that most of them are supposed to get a copy of any NIL deal contract, where presumably it is reviewed for compliance with the law and the "team contract" or other university rules.   Even if UT was slow or picky about the contracts, that ain't making them any money.

[David Dennison 18,849]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't see where you're getting that.

The only marked difference between Texas' NIL law and other states is the athlete can't use institution trademarks along with any of his/her own NIL "work."

That doesn't make UT any money.  It maybe helps preserve their trademarks to some degree, but that doesn't make any additional money.

Universities seem mostly cut out of the NIL process, except that most of them are supposed to get a copy of any NIL deal contract, where presumably it is reviewed for compliance with the law and the "team contract" or other university rules.   Even if UT was slow or picky about the contracts, that ain't making them any money.

Protecting trademarks protects revenue. If players are eventually allowed to make money wearing a trademarked property, Texas will absolutely take a cut and increase its revenue.

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Protecting trademarks protects revenue. If players are eventually allowed to make money wearing a trademarked property, Texas will absolutely take a cut and increase its revenue.

But that's not what you said.  And the law doesn't permit the latter, currently.

You can argue about the wisdom of denying players use of university trademarks, whether for free or requiring yet another license from the University.

But all the law does currently is preserve status quo regarding Texas' trademarks.

And, while I think you can rest assured that UT lobbied for that provision, they didn't write or pass the law.

[David Dennison 18,849]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

But that's not what you said.  And the law doesn't permit the latter, currently.

You can argue about the wisdom of denying players use of university trademarks, whether for free or requiring yet another license from the University.

But all the law does currently is preserve status quo regarding Texas' trademarks.

And, while I think you can rest assured that UT lobbied for that provision, they didn't write or pass the law.

My original point was that Texas places making money over winning.

That's not really up for debate.

[Michael Knight 12,976]

5 hours ago, utee94 said:

It's not a problem unique to UT.  Every other university in the state will be hamstrung by the same issues.  So it seems in this one area at least, legislators that are loyal to their Texas universities, should be united in attempting to gain the best possible advantages for their alma maters, relative to schools in other states.

Now, are they smart enough to realize that and work in concert with UT? Well...

 

 

 

The current bill was written by 2 UT alums so....

[utee94 15,805]

1 minute ago, Michael Knight said:

The current bill was written by 2 UT alums so....

...so they were shortsighted.  And not that smart anyway.  Politicians, you know...

[Michael Knight 12,976]

Just now, utee94 said:

...so they were shortsighted.  And not that smart anyway.  Politicians, you know...

Or more likely they consulted with UT and wrote what they were told to write

[utee94 15,805]

Just now, Michael Knight said:

Or more likely they consulted with UT and wrote what they were told to write

If/when it becomes apparent that it puts UT at a competitive disadvantage to universities in other states, it can be changed.

Like I said, shortsighted.  

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

44 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

My original point was that Texas places making money over winning.

That's not really up for debate.

And that's fair.

However, aside from the law itself (for which, again, I am sure UT is largely responsible), I'm not seeing anything that indicates that UT is administering the NIL "program" in such a way to place its financial interests above anyone elses.

Plonsky was at one time responsible for all the marketing/licensing type shit, so I'm sure she's being legalistic about everything and a general pain in the ass.  

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

15 minutes ago, utee94 said:

If/when it becomes apparent that it puts UT at a competitive disadvantage to universities in other states, it can be changed.

Like I said, shortsighted.  

What will be interesting, as Dennison notes, is, if the ban on using university marks is lifted, will UT figure out some kind of free license for NIL endeavors, or insert itself into every deal and demand the usual royalties.

It should be noted that wearing or displaying legitimately purchased gear bearing UT marks is probably not infringement and probably doesn't require a license.  Other uses could be more problematic.  Also, all UT really needs to do to avoid weakening or dilution of the UT marks is reserve the right to squash things that reflect badly on the university.  It's not necessary that they collect a royalty. particularly for this rather unique case.

Edited August 5, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Francisco 2.0 32,387]

Basketball, but same principal applies.  And the more I think about it, it's far easier for a school to arrange NIL opportunities for 2-3 studs in that sport and turn a program around.  Football takes way too many specialists at too many positions, chemistry, etc.

 

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,775]

On 8/4/2021 at 8:09 PM, TwiceHorn said:

What will be interesting, as Dennison notes, is, if the ban on using university marks is lifted, will UT figure out some kind of free license for NIL endeavors, or insert itself into every deal and demand the usual royalties.

I would think the latter. Why should athletes and their business partners be exempt from anyone else? Seems like that would be a good lesson for them to learn. Your school’s trademarks are not part of your name, image, or likeness. It’s one thing to get paid for autographing or advertising legitimately licensed merchandise. It’s another to advertise unlicensed <product name> by <player name> if it violates the school’s trademarks, isn’t it? Doesn’t it make it harder to prosecute anyone for trademark violations if you let some people get away with it but not others? I don’t know about special dispensation (probably not the correct term) but why shouldn’t athletes be bound by the same rules as everyone else?

”You wanted to be in the game, right? Now you’re in the game.”

[BurntOrange&White 39,930]

17 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I would think the latter. Why should athletes and their business partners be exempt from anyone else? Seems like that would be a good lesson for them to learn. Your school’s trademarks are not part of your name, image, or likeness. It’s one thing to get paid for autographing or advertising legitimately licensed merchandise. It’s another to advertise unlicensed <product name> by <player name> if it violates the school’s trademarks, isn’t it? Doesn’t it make it harder to prosecute anyone for trademark violations if you let some people get away with it but not others? I don’t know about special dispensation (probably not the correct term) but why shouldn’t athletes be bound by the same rules as everyone else?

”You wanted to be in the game, right? Now you’re in the game.”

Yeah except other schools in other states allow it so your whole notion is fucking stupid. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,775]

36 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yeah except other schools in other states allow it so your whole notion is fucking stupid. 

Not at Ohio State. See this link from upthread (same page, even):

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ohio-state-allowing-athletes-to-profit-from-merchandise-sales-through-group-licensing-agreement

What part of “licensing” are you missing?

[Burt Macklin 19,020]

13 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Not at Ohio State. See this link from upthread (same page, even):

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ohio-state-allowing-athletes-to-profit-from-merchandise-sales-through-group-licensing-agreement

What part of “licensing” are you missing?

Wtf are you talking about. You just proved it is allowed at tOSU

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I would think the latter. Why should athletes and their business partners be exempt from anyone else? Seems like that would be a good lesson for them to learn. Your school’s trademarks are not part of your name, image, or likeness. It’s one thing to get paid for autographing or advertising legitimately licensed merchandise. It’s another to advertise unlicensed <product name> by <player name> if it violates the school’s trademarks, isn’t it? Doesn’t it make it harder to prosecute anyone for trademark violations if you let some people get away with it but not others? I don’t know about special dispensation (probably not the correct term) but why shouldn’t athletes be bound by the same rules as everyone else?

”You wanted to be in the game, right? Now you’re in the game.”

I tend to agree, from a theoretical legal perspective.  And from where this all originated.  Meaning, players inherently own their name, image, and likeness.  It is fundamentally unfair to use it without compensation.  Conversely, players should have the ability to utilize their NIL for compensation.

That's an at least slightly different issue from players now having carte blanche to whore themselves out however they see fit as long as it can be tangentially connected to NIL.

Regardless, I think the Texas law puts UT and Texas schools at a disadvantage relative to their peers by forbidding the use of university trademarks.  Note that the law doesn't say infringing use, but any use at all.

As mentioned in the previous post, I don't think any/all use of Texas' trademarks in "promo spots" constitutes infringement.  Wearing "gear" wouldn't.

Now, if the spot includes all kinds of longhorn logos and symbols in the background or foreground, or some other such "organic" use of the marks, that likely would constitute infringement.

A trademark owner has two "responsibilities" with regard to third parties' use of its trademarks:  "prosecute" infringement by unauthorized users and insure that licensees use marks in such a way that it doesn't "hurt the brand."  If it isn't infringement ab initio, or is a close case, there's no loss of rights associated with failure to "prosecute."  As "agents" or "sponsees" of the University, I think players could be granted a royalty-free license to use University marks, so long as the University retains a right of approval without legally affecting enforceability.

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

25 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Wtf are you talking about. You just proved it is allowed at tOSU

Yeah, that seems to reflect the middle position, that players can involve university marks in their NIL efforts with permission, or a license.

The Texas law states that an athlete may not earn compensation:

for providing an endorsement while using intellectual property or other property owned by the institution;

That is, no helmets, no jerseys, no TMS-DKR, nothing presumably on campus, no logos no nothing.  From a strictly theoretical standpoint, it makes perfect sense:  the value the student-athlete obtains should be from his own NIL, not his NIL associated with or bootstrapped by UT.  Without such a provision, a crafty "buyer" could use a no-name athlete to associate itself with the University in a way it could not otherwise, or not without paying hefty royalties.

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Burt Macklin 19,020]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that seems to reflect the middle position, that players can involve university marks in their NIL efforts with permission, or a license.

The Texas law states that an athlete may not earn compensation:

for providing an endorsement while using intellectual property or other property owned by the institution;

That is, no helmets, no jerseys, no TMS-DKR, nothing presumably on campus, no logos no nothing.

 

I don’t view that as a middle ground really. I don’t think anyone expects players to get to use school marks with no oversight or compensation  to the school.