Started By
Message
re: Is Ewers the biggest example so far of NIL failure?
Posted on 4/28/25 at 12:54 pm to TexasOnTop
Posted on 4/28/25 at 12:54 pm to TexasOnTop
quote:
It literally means he was getting paid based for his brand. Not pay for play. Austin ( unlike every other SEC college town) is a city. There are far more opportunists for NIL deals, thus the collective doesn't have to work as hard.
No, it literally doesn't. It means people signed deals with him outside the collective.
I don't know why you believe collectives are the only way pay to play NIL money can happen, but it's way off base.
1
Posted on 4/28/25 at 2:27 pm to 3down10
quote:
No, it literally doesn't. It means people signed deals with him outside the collective.
...Which would be for him to advertise their product / brand. That's not pay for play.
Posted on 4/28/25 at 3:29 pm to narddogg81
quote:
Is Ewers the biggest example so far of NIL failure?
NIL Failure??? Hell no, the money he collected from OSU and UT, he's a success.
Posted on 4/28/25 at 3:46 pm to TexasOnTop
quote:
...Which would be for him to advertise their product / brand. That's not pay for play.
No, it does not mean that. You have no way of knowing the true intent of the deal. All deals are done under that guise.
I understand some legitimate deals exist, Bryce Young had a ton of them before collectives really started. However, just because a deal is done outside the collective does not indicate it's not pay to play.
If you donate to a collective, I don't think that counts as a business expense. However, if you do the NIL privately in contracts with your business, then things change.
This post was edited on 4/28/25 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 4/28/25 at 4:03 pm to narddogg81
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. I didn’t see this was already posted.
This post was edited on 4/28/25 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 4/28/25 at 4:08 pm to 3down10
quote:
No, it does not mean that. You have no way of knowing the true intent of the deal. All deals are done under that guise.
I understand some legitimate deals exist, Bryce Young had a ton of them before collectives really started. However, just because a deal is done outside the collective does not indicate it's not pay to play.
If you donate to a collective, I don't think that counts as a business expense. However, if you do the NIL privately in contracts with your business, then things change.
A company is not just paying an athlete to exist. They are exchanging money for a service (event, social media post, ect). They have to offer a service in return for the money or you are asking to be audited.
In summary, it's not pay for play.
Posted on 4/28/25 at 4:31 pm to TexasOnTop
quote:
A company is not just paying an athlete to exist. They are exchanging money for a service (event, social media post, ect). They have to offer a service in return for the money or you are asking to be audited.
In summary, it's not pay for play.
It's the same with collectives, they are technically paying for services.
Once again, you do not know the intent of the individual deals.
Posted on 4/28/25 at 6:49 pm to 3down10
quote:
Once again, you do not know the intent of the individual deals.
Yet you’re acting like you do.
quote:
It's the same with collectives, they are technically paying for services.
Correct. Both are paying for services like events and social media posts. That’s not pay for play.
This post was edited on 4/28/25 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 4/28/25 at 7:05 pm to TexasOnTop
quote:
Yet you’re acting like you do.
False. Texas fans claimed that because he wasn't getting money from the collective, it was proof he wasn't getting any pay to play NIL.
quote:
Correct. Both are paying for services like events and social media posts. That’s not pay for play.
Yeah and whores just want $500 for gas money.
Dumbass.
Posted on 4/28/25 at 7:23 pm to 3down10
quote:
Texas fans claimed that because he wasn't getting money from the collective, it was proof he wasn't getting any pay to play NIL.
No actually this is the initial response you replied to…
quote:
His NIL was earned through his actual Name, Image, and Likeness
Which if it wasn’t through a collective, it means he was doing brand deals with businesses. Hence it was from his Name Image and Likeness. Businesses don’t just fork over giant chunks of change without a service being done. That’s how you trigger an audit.
This isn’t a hard topic to get. If you are doing a service outside of playing football, it’s not pay for play.
quote:
Yeah and whores just want $500 for gas money.
I’m not sure what that has to do with a business paying an athlete for promotion.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 1:22 am to TexasOnTop
quote:
Which if it wasn’t through a collective, it means he was doing brand deals with businesses. Hence it was from his Name Image and Likeness. Businesses don’t just fork over giant chunks of change without a service being done. That’s how you trigger an audit.
This isn’t a hard topic to get. If you are doing a service outside of playing football, it’s not pay for play.
It doesn't mean that, but I'm not going to sit here and argue with you anymore. You are dense as frick.
quote:
I’m not sure what that has to do with a business paying an athlete for promotion.
Because you are dense as frick.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 1:51 am to CharlotteSooner
quote:
That was true until aggot went to the SEC and started paying recruits under the table.
Stfu. You don't know what you're talking about. Good grief.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 2:18 am to MillerLiteTime
Not to mention which, he’s pretty clearly injury prone. At least this way he was able to make good money putting his physical well being on the line for the school. Lot of guys over the years would have loved that opportunity. It’s the best argument for letting players get paid. The sport is too violent to deny players the right to make money to take the risk.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News