In Reply to: If there's to be unfairness I'd rather the schools be on posted by TJJ on April 30, 2025 at 20:26:30
When in fact "locking them into multi-year deals" is guaranteed money. The contracts aren't about controlling the players, rather, as with any other business, they are about protecting investments. There is no such thing as free money, yet that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting the players should get, getting paid with no strings attached. And the way the deals are being setup at UCLA, players are receiving monthly "paychecks" for services rendered, so breach of contract would likely just mean no further payments. Where it gets stickier is with higher profile marquee players who might negotiate signing bonuses. In those cases, I expect that much like with coach buyouts, there will be a graduated penalty that diminishes over time - you get $200K signing bonus for a two year deal and leave after one season, you are on the hook to repay $100K, you leave immediately after coming for spring ball and you are required to pay back 90%. And why should that be any different? The athletes want to make it a business and that is how business works, you get paid for good and services provided, fail to provide something that you have been paid upfront for and you owe that money back. Name another industry where this isn't the case. And explain why this should be any different. And FWIW, any kid who is signing a significant NIL that doesn't have representation is unrepresented by choice