UTK QB Nico Iamaleava holding out for more NIL money (TN/Nico part ways - Entering portal)
- Thread starter RammerJammer15
- Start date
He is. ESPN had on their scrolling news feed yesterday that he was transferring back to UCLA with his brother, Nico. What a crapshow.
Slight caveat... Tennessee has no state tax on income, but they do have a state tax on investment returns.
A moot point, I'm sure, because I seriously doubt that Iamagonnaleaveformoremoney is the investing type.
By the negotiating method, I can tell that he and his camp do not have a real agent, like Jimmy Sexton. If the negotiations were done right, he probably could have gotten some form of increase without blowing up the entire deal. But this is what happens when family gets involved.
I can't post Twitter links from work, but Clay Travis is reporting that an Arkansas collective is suing Nico's brother for NIL money. If anyone can post the link, I'd appreciate it.
Alabama and Iowa both should have done this last season over a certain OL.
There needs to be some repercussions at some point for grabbing a bag of money and going back on your word.
Hey BigAl, I'm pretty sure the General Assembly repealed the Hall tax. Either way, this was a stupid decision from a financial standpoint. Plus, he'll now have fewer marquee games, a less good supporting cast of players around him, and less community/media interest. I hope Papa has been able to explain to him why this was a smart decision.
I hope they do end up suing and winning. It would at least set a precedent for others to do the same and possibly slow down this transfer portal for more money dancing act CFB has going on right now.
I don't think they realized the financial hit they were going to take by going to California, the cost of living is outrageous compared to Tennessee, housing, gas, taxes, its on steroids compared to Tennessee. Terrible move IMO,but any port in a storm i guess.
Without any regulations being put in, the "free" market will start putting in its own "guardrails," and that will be the right to sue the players. All it will take is a few high profile athletes (like Nico) losing a lawsuit, and it will greatly curb how much of this transfer tomfoolery happens. Because most of these high-profile athletes are in NIL agreements with upfront money that they've more than likely already spent before they've ever held up their end of the deal.
I do too, but the key thing here is that they may have to prove damages. Not sure how you can prove damages in this whole NIL thing...
I kinda feel like it was go to UCLA for some money vs no money at a Group of 5 school. The rest is just an extra kick to the shins.
I do too, but the key thing here is that they may have to prove damages. Not sure how you can prove damages in this whole NIL thing...
The internet rumor mill is saying Nico didn't show up to all of his obligations from the NIL. These players who sign true NIL deals have obligations to fulfill. They also get footed a lot of up-front money to entice them to sign the deal. So if Nico got a sizeable sum fronted to him but didn't fulfill all of his obligations, then they could easily prorate the damages based on that information.
Last edited:
Arkansas and UTe are alleging breach of contract. Which begs a bunch of questions around the terms of the contracts.
Were they written or verbal? Were there provisions for either transfer or failure to perform the required duties (assuming there were any duties attached to the money)?
If there were such provisions, did they apply only to money not yet paid, or did they provide for clawback of upfront or other previously-paid money?
Can either of the Iamaleava brothers use the fact that they were under 21 when they signed, and therefore not legally able to contract, as a defense? I don't think so, but I bet they'll try it.
Only a very few people know the truth of the contracts. But like a lot of others, I hope Arkansas and UTe sue and win.
Regardless, at a bare minimum, this clown car circling a dumpster fire that was started by a train wreck will cause a lot of schools to tighten up the wording of their pay-for-play contracts.
Guaranteed that wording will become a recruiting tool -- as in, schools ABC and XYZ are offering the same money. But one has fewer strings attached and less recourse in the event of default.
Or more interestingly, ABC is offering more money than XYZ. But ABC has some serious recourse and clawback rights in the event of transfer or failure to perform duties...whereas XYZ's terms are a lot more lenient. Does the player choose more money with tight requirements or less money with fewer requirements? And what does that choice say about the player's commitment to the team?
Then you have the question of whether contractual terms are uniform for all players on a given team, or some contracts are less restrictive than others.
The permutations are endless and the only cure I see is a CBA.
And yeah, the irony of UTe suing the NCAA for the right to start all this is sweet enough to rot teeth.
Were they written or verbal? Were there provisions for either transfer or failure to perform the required duties (assuming there were any duties attached to the money)?
If there were such provisions, did they apply only to money not yet paid, or did they provide for clawback of upfront or other previously-paid money?
Can either of the Iamaleava brothers use the fact that they were under 21 when they signed, and therefore not legally able to contract, as a defense? I don't think so, but I bet they'll try it.
Only a very few people know the truth of the contracts. But like a lot of others, I hope Arkansas and UTe sue and win.
Regardless, at a bare minimum, this clown car circling a dumpster fire that was started by a train wreck will cause a lot of schools to tighten up the wording of their pay-for-play contracts.
Guaranteed that wording will become a recruiting tool -- as in, schools ABC and XYZ are offering the same money. But one has fewer strings attached and less recourse in the event of default.
Or more interestingly, ABC is offering more money than XYZ. But ABC has some serious recourse and clawback rights in the event of transfer or failure to perform duties...whereas XYZ's terms are a lot more lenient. Does the player choose more money with tight requirements or less money with fewer requirements? And what does that choice say about the player's commitment to the team?
Then you have the question of whether contractual terms are uniform for all players on a given team, or some contracts are less restrictive than others.
The permutations are endless and the only cure I see is a CBA.
And yeah, the irony of UTe suing the NCAA for the right to start all this is sweet enough to rot teeth.
Last edited:
I'm going to go with getting back a pro-rated (or all) of the upfront monies. That would seem to be the easiest to get. Again, not sure how true it is, but the rumor circulating on some other sites is that Nico didn't fulfill his obligations per his NIL agreement, and that's what they're suing for. If that's the case and they can prove they paid him the monies and he didn't hold up his end of the deal, then he will have to pay back either all or a prorated amount of the monies.
Last edited:
Link
Decent article from the UCLA side about this entire Nico fiasco. The only thing I disagree with him on is him being fully on board with players being paid king's ransoms and being able to transfer anywhere they want and at any time. Yet turns around and says there needs to be "regulations" and "rules". You can't have it both ways. You can't have "regulations" and "rules" and keep things the way they are.
Decent article from the UCLA side about this entire Nico fiasco. The only thing I disagree with him on is him being fully on board with players being paid king's ransoms and being able to transfer anywhere they want and at any time. Yet turns around and says there needs to be "regulations" and "rules". You can't have it both ways. You can't have "regulations" and "rules" and keep things the way they are.
I do too, but the key thing here is that they may have to prove damages. Not sure how you can prove damages in this whole NIL thing...
not really. It depends on how the contract is written. If a contract has mandatory criteria - i.e. we are paying you this NIL and in exchange you have to do this many public appearances, you have to remain at this school for this long, or just a fixed duration for the contract terms, etc, then a contract can have penalties for not meeting those criteria, whether there are damages or not.
Trending content
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thread 'Orange Bowl CFP Qtr: #4 Texas Tech v #5 Oregon - Rust vs B1G Pride (ESPN Noon ET)'- CajunCrimson
Replies: 286 -
Latest threads
-
Question: "Alabama can't run the ball" - Have we ever had that issue before?
- Started by BigAlinKnoxville
- Replies: 6
-
ESPN: Kiffin, LSU earn commit from 4-star DE Bryant- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Top passer Mestemaker commits to Oklahoma St.
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Cristobal: Canes learned from midseason failures
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
News Article: What was wrong with Ty Simpson? Inside look at Alabama QB's injuries in 2025- Started by Slowpoke Catracho
- Replies: 0