It's about eliminating the mischaracterization of payments. When NIL is in fact, compensation for use of Name, image, and likeness, then it works, Nike doesn't enter an agreement with an athlete that they don't believe will deliver for them financially. When it becomes pay for play it is problematic. As I indicated, I don't think there is any problem with an NIL deal where the party can indicate with specificity the reasonable relationship between the use of a players Name, Image, and Likeness to its payoff for the sponsor.