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?
From the article:
These are not the type of people who typically make losing bets. So the fact that your first thought is “this seems too good to be true” is why I said in one of the other replies that alarm bells are going off in my head.
Venture capital types don’t typically just roll over and take it on the chin if they can help it. Especially in a situation like this where there’s such a vast gulf in power dynamics between contracting parties.
I would not at all be surprised if there’s fine print language defining any professional sports contracts (like with the NBA/NFL) as NIL, or hell arguably even any employment contract with any company (basically wage garnishments).
Theres also that part at the end where they have a “boilerplate clause” for conduct that allows them to nullify the contract and seek repayment. Imagine this group had signed the entirety of the Georgia football team to their NIL pay-advance deals. We all know the legal troubles that have been surrounding that team from more minor stuff like speeding to more serious stuff like assault and battery. You think this group wouldn’t be looking at that and saying “okay, the guys who are performing and getting paid we leave on their deal - cash is coming in. The ones who are buried on the depth chart? Conduct clause them and get our investment back.”
How many college athletes have incidents that could be considered conduct clauses? Hell, even if they didn’t, again with the power dynamic, many might feel like they couldn’t fight that in court.
There’s just so many ways that this goes south and gets gross really quickly. It all just feels so slimy and exploitative.
Especially since there was that quote about how Perkins has mostly been relying on word of mouth advertisement so far. This is on ESPN’s website - his employer btw - which is arguably the biggest possible platform they could get.