Hey, remember when members of the Georgia legislature cited the need for UGA to win football games as justification for putting a 90-day window in the state’s Open Records law as it applied to athletic departments?
The Louisiana legislature just said hold our beer.
Don’t ask, don’t tell, bitchez.
Get The Picture 
I hope someone in Walton Co sticks a microphone in Jimbo or Nick’s face for a response.
Maybe this bill is what sold BK on coming to cajun country – unlimited reserves to acquire talent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who really thought that the Louisiana legislature wouldn’t show their collective ass eventually? Huey “the Kingfish” Long & friends are on line 1.
Bless my Cajun brethren’s hearts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shit, the newspaper report of the bill linked in the Twitter post says that the bill authorizes Louisiana universities to pay players.
The NCAA rules say that third parties may pay players for use of their names, images and likenesses but universities may not. Ergo, the “collectives” craze. Louisiana is setting up a direct challenge to the NCAA. We will see if the NCAA has the balls to enforce its rules.
With the caveat that I am not an antitrust lawyer, the O’Bannon and Alston courts did find that rules regarding compensation to players by schools can be permissible under the Sherman Act as a reasonable restraint to distinguish college sports from professional sports in marketing itself to the viewing public. O’Bannon and Alston prohibited NCAA caps on compensation that is in some fashion related to the student experience (cost of attendance, Alston payments and stuff like that as long as it is a conference setting limits, not the NCAA.)
I believe the NCAA could prevail on an antitrust claim that a rule prohibiting schools from directly paying recruits is permissible under the Rule of Reason and the O’Bannon analysis.
LikeLike
The wild west NIL just got some spice added to it…
LikeLike
We will see if the NCAA has the balls to enforce its rules.
The answer to that query is an emphatic NO!
LikeLike
LOL… This falls under, “you just can’t make this crap up”…
LikeLike
Why would they need to hide the NIL deals?
LikeLike
That’s none of your business. Now move along!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Because sunshine is a disinfectant and they might have plans to grow stuff in a peach tree dish.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hehehehe. Peach tree dish.
I grew a banzai peach tree in a “dish” for a few years. It finally bore fruit and fell over. Transplanted it outside and it didn’t survive the idiot with the weedeater. The peaches sucked.
LikeLike
She’s no fun she fell right over….
LikeLike
I can see the logic of the bill. Why should a business transaction between two individuals that does not involve any public funds be subject to public records rules or laws?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why should info regarding an athlete’s endorsement deals with private businesses be subject to public records? There’s literally nothing public about the transaction. Records about the university’s dealings with the athletes, yes. But I can’t FOIA a random sophomore’s employment info at Starbucks. Why should I be able to FOIA Stetson Bennett’s employment info if he’s endorsing Starbucks? Unless they’re doing an endorsement with a government agency, this makes sense to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If it’s already non-FOIA-able, why do we need a new law?
LikeLike
I’m not sure, I wasn’t aware there was anything that could be FOIAd in NIL. Maybe the schools’ compliance departments that are in charge of monitoring that stuff are keeping documents that can be requested under freedom of information. But it seems to me that unless public money is going to the players, that information should be private.
LikeLike
Snitches get stitches.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: A “novel issue” goes to court | Get The Picture