... isn't settled by July?
Given that many kids from the tp have signed their contract with Ucla's NIL collective, I'm thinking that might be the case. Which is very unlike Ucla.
Now, I haven't seen the "deal" that a football player signs with Ucla. Maybe there is language in there that protects Ucla..."if the House settlement isn't approved in the time frame of this agreement, then Ucla owes you nothing". That's kinda rough. I'm not sure a coveted player would be willing to accept those terms.
Let me back up a bit. There is one way for a player to get money now: nil. The school can't pay a kid directly. The 3rd party nil collective can get the kid paid in exchange for something from the kid: an appearance, TV commercial, etc
In the (near) future, there will be TWO ways for a player to get paid: nil and revenue sharing.
The plan is for each school to pay student athletes (collectively) $20 MM per year just for playing. No side activities required. That's "revenue sharing".
My original sense was that nil was going to be unaffected. That a player would get his rev share cut (base salary) and then his nil was his endorsement $. Emma raducanu in tennis: she had $750k in tournament winnings last year, and $12 MM in endorsement deals with Rolex, Mercedes, HBSC, Chanel. etc.
But the article below says that a player's nil money is subject to the $20 MM cap. (Which doesn't seem legal to me... just another anti-trust violation.)
Ucla Athletics would MASSIVELY benefit from a salary cap, given how little Ucla alumni care about Athletics. The AD can't compete for players with the programs that care. Their passion AND $ kicks Ucla's @ss almost every time. But if the money is capped, Ucla could offset passionate fan base with being a nice place to live. Some kids might take that trade off.