for those so inclined to opine.
1) Does a prohibition on conflict between athlete NIL and university licensing ban, for example, a UM athlete from signing with adidas as an apparel sponsor for non team activities?
2) The MI state law bans direct co-licensing or transfer of license from the university to the athlete. Do you believe that bans UM from entering a licensing agreement with a third-party which also has group licensing with UM athletes - or in other words does it ban UM from the same “indirect” group licensing agreements that Ohio State and Indiana have adopted?
3) Do you believe a company or organization materially controlled by an athletic booster (or boosters) is not acting in a manner consistent with standard business practices by engaging athletes for their NIL - and therefore should be banned from doing so?
These questions, among others, are why we haven’t seen UM “go big” on NIL yet.
1) Does a prohibition on conflict between athlete NIL and university licensing ban, for example, a UM athlete from signing with adidas as an apparel sponsor for non team activities?
2) The MI state law bans direct co-licensing or transfer of license from the university to the athlete. Do you believe that bans UM from entering a licensing agreement with a third-party which also has group licensing with UM athletes - or in other words does it ban UM from the same “indirect” group licensing agreements that Ohio State and Indiana have adopted?
3) Do you believe a company or organization materially controlled by an athletic booster (or boosters) is not acting in a manner consistent with standard business practices by engaging athletes for their NIL - and therefore should be banned from doing so?
These questions, among others, are why we haven’t seen UM “go big” on NIL yet.
