Making sense of the NCAA football video game holdup

While senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a democrat who is a long-time friend of Nick Saban, and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, a republican who is a former college football coach, are attempting to construct a NIL law that is palatable across the board, it’s unlikely to gain widespread support.

Why?

The start of the whole problem came into focus yet again this week.

Years ago, basketball player Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA over the licensing of his name, image and likeness to a video game company.

Well, fast forward to today and we have that same video game company attempting to get every college player to agree for just $500. We’re talking about a game that will rake in nine figures.

Furthermore, the players will not get any future royalties.

Sure, the players are free to take the deal.

But let’s be honest. Is $500 and no financial upside worth anyone signing ANY legal document, much less actually giving something away in the process?

And having a lawyer look at the agreement alone might cost a player half or more of that $500.

I’m not anti-NCAA or pro-NIL. But it’s this sort of lopsided economic that makes no sense to me.

Perhaps others will have different takes, and I can be persuaded.

I certainly don’t know the answer here.

A couple of folks have asked, and I was curious myself, so I did some digging. Stanford punter Ryan Sanborn is on campus and participating in drills. But he has yet to officially enroll, only because he is a grad student and courses don’t start until the fall.

So those folks concerned about the punting position and Sanborn’s following through with his pledge can rest easy.