1300. I wanted to get a sharper mind than mine to discuss the whole name, image and likeness stuff that is now okay? Starting today, and they don't get much sharper than Jeremy M. Evans, Esquire. He is a founder at California sports lawyer and he has found a great avenue for his knowledge on these kind of subjects as the host of believe in sports law. On the believe podcast network. Jeremy Appreciate you joining me. The proverbial floodgates are open. Have we seen a flood of college athletes cashing in today? Well, hey, thanks, Ryan. Appreciated being with you and great being on the show with. Yeah. So, Yeah, We're definitely seeing a flood of opportunity, and I think there was one athlete who signed the initial deal. For $20,000 with a moving company. And we're just seeing things kind of grow from there. I think some of the larger deal is going to take some time to develop. But there was even the athlete. I think, the star quarterback at Wisconsin who created logo So this is just the beginning. And as some of these other states get their laws in place, or get their universities in place, and in terms of their programming, this is, uh, going to open up some serious opportunities for Athletes in all sports and men and women, just depending really on how many followers they have, Because in my mind, that's the real catalyst to N I l It's It's their ability to reach an audience directly and not have to go through a broadcaster. You mention that the bigger deals with bigger companies are going to take a little while and that makes a lot of sense. But do you think once we get Into the middle of this, and it becomes kind of more normalized, and we're a few weeks, maybe a month or two into this thing. Do you think that will have more smaller deals like the moving company? Or do you think that will have more? Uh, you know, big deals like with cell phone companies and things like that. You know, that's a good question. I think it's definitely going to be state by state because You know, the interesting situation here is that we don't need state law to tell athletes that they can make money. State. Basic California was the catalyst and getting this going because the answer to the lay wasn't moving on it. And so California passed its fair pay to play act. And then the anti responded and admittedly, Mark Emirates said that it was California's law that really got this conversation started. An existing state law already protects name, image and likeness, and people are allowed to profit off of that. The problem was that police said, you know, you basically can't do this and so I think once answered, really opened up those doors and you know, and obviously state law was kind of opening this up in universities were saying yes. I think that in states that went live with this on July 1st and they had laws in place and universities were already on board. We're probably going to see more opportunity there. But California's law did not go into effect. I think until 2023 And so I think state by state, we might see some bigger deals. But what we also have to keep in mind is that a lot of these schools are signing with companies like open doors. And, uh, Altea sports partners in terms of so they can manage this. N I l sort of structure. So I think that once those things are in play, people have been educated. I think we'll start seeing bigger deals. But the last point I'll make to that. Ryan is this idea that like in California, for example, There's going to be limitations because In my mind. It was the most open market legislation that was put out there, and it basically said You can find whatever deal you want. You just can't conflict with the underlying university. So if the school is signed with Adidas They would be able to actually wouldn't be able to sign a deal with Nike, for example. But if you compare that to let's say Georgia, they're going to pool 74.9% of the money that come in from the athletes give it to the other athletes that are in the programs they're not making. The money. There's also limitations on you can't sponsor anything from the sin industries like gambling and alcohol and cannabis and that sort of thing. And of course, you can't take the money. The money goes in an escrow account until one year after graduation or one year after you leave school. So there's going to be some limitations on this state by state Conference by conference school by school, my guess would be California will probably be one of the last ones to pursue this. Especially since the schools and the Pac 12 seem to be a little more conservative in their approach with this Um, but I could definitely see schools in the Midwest and the South and in the East, maybe having particularly in Florida, having a bigger effect in some of these bigger deals happening. Jeremy Evans. My guess he's the host of believe in sports on the bleed podcast network Talking about N I l I want to go back to the to touch on the Georgia thing because one of my questions was Is this only going to or the vast majority of this is going to benefit only men's basketball in football, or will there be? And and does that matter if it only On Mostly benefits those two sports, but the Georgia thing you just mentioned what is that about pulling the the money to give to other athletes? Right. So basically what's going to happen in Georgia's that let's say the top athletes, so I entered that in two parts so The athletes that are in Georgia. Going to Georgia schools will be able to profit from their name, image and likeness while they're attending.