I'm very conflicted on this issue. For one, as a [mostly] libertarian, I have issues with limits on free speech and people not being able to make money off their own image and likeness. But it's also a voluntary agreement that everyone understands going in.

Still, I think the biggest issue that I have is the absolute potential for abuse that blurs any line between payment for image and likeness and just straight up payment by boosters. We're not realistically talking about players always just getting "market value" here. If a Tuscaloosa car dealership is keen to give sweetheart deals - well above market rates that generate real ROI for the business - that's just an end run around paying players to come to Alabama. Who is going to be the arbiter of market rates assuming that's a standard anyone actually cares about?

Lastly, what happens when mens players are getting 99% of image and likeness dollars? That's a much more sensitive issue in college than it is in professional leagues (especially since the pro leagues are all different governing bodies).