• Dig_bickclubB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    The article does talk about the terms of a deal they got access to, they straight up lose the 50k if the player doesn’t make anything from NIL. You’re making up contract provisions that could be bad and being mad about it even though its not part of the deal.

    • Rnorman3B
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      you’re making up things to be mad about

      I said up front that even at its most charitable I still think it’s gross and exploitative. I then followed it up to say that it could get worse. I never said it was.

      I get it, you’re more on the trusting side and I’m more on the cynical side. But for me, exploitative business practices on their face ring giant alarm bells to be on the look out for fine print and further exploitation.

      Is it really that far outside of the realm of possibility that the single contract mentioned in the fluff media piece designed to promote this to the young athletes reading it might not be fully representative of every single contract they will ever sign kids to?