During an hour-long presentation to the USC Board of Trustees on Friday, new South Carolina athletic director Jeremiah Donati covered a wide range of topics, from the Williams-Brice Stadium renovation to the Garnet Trust NIL collective. One trustee even quipped about how USC would allocate its $20.5 million revenue-sharing cap, joking, “I bet our illegitimate cousins in the northwest corner are gonna put $20.5 million towards football and nothing else.” However, the most pressing questions from the trustees revolved around the market value of future name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals.
Donati explained that any NIL deal after July 1 would be subject to fair-market value, emphasizing that “appropriate range of compensation” would be the key phrase for deals exceeding $600. He clarified that if a business, like a pizza place, wanted to offer a South Carolina student-athlete an NIL deal over $600, a clearinghouse would review the agreement to ensure it aligns with fair-market value. If a deal isn’t approved, the student-athlete risks losing their eligibility by accepting it.
The discussion grew more specific when trustee Dan Adams raised a real-world example, stating, “We just competed for a linebacker. We were gonna offer $400,000, and Mississippi took him for $800,000.” Donati responded by acknowledging the unpredictable nature of the current NIL landscape, calling it the “wild, wild West,” but reiterated that his focus was on post-July 1 regulations. Adams didn’t name the player or specify the source of the figures, but the scenario appeared to reference Grambling State transfer linebacker Andrew Jones, who initially committed to South Carolina before flipping to Ole Miss two days later. A team source, however, disputed the $400,000 figure, calling it inflated and inaccurate.
The actual value of NIL deals is rarely disclosed publicly, adding another layer of complexity to an already intricate and evolving system.
Leave a Reply