Just a heads up, I'm gonna be in the comments for this one, so if you have questions or things you want me to respond to, let me know. I'll also try to clarify things when necessary.
Thank you Dimitri on the great piece! As a private investigator myself, I appreciate the background on NIL and details you provided. I also found some fishy things about the MOW website which I've commented on below.
Hi Dimitri, a few new developments which I've posted a comment on below after I had some private discussions with my BRO friends. Thank you again for writing this and hopefully, we can get MOW to correct their ways in regards to transparency as they have already done 1 positive thing which I believe was caused by our actions!
Not to any real extent. There were rumors that Dante Moore decided to come to UCLA because they were able to put together a competitive-enough package for him, but other than that not really.
I think it is a 7 figure deal of some kind, but also not a "here's a few million dollars" kinda thing, but more "we can guarantee this much, and then you're in LA and we have connections that can get you more".
I also have a sneaking suspicion MoW was not behind the Moore deal, but rather someone with actual deep pockets (I would guess Wasserman since he still wants Chip to be successful as he's the one who drove the push to hire him in the first place, but could be others).
Carlos is good. Not to get too political, but he may be a bit leftist for some of you, but he's good people and his podcast is really good if you want to hear a general fan perspective (it is in many ways too homerific about the Pac-12 in general, which makes it even funnier).
18 months minimum to get back to baseline. I think it's the right decision for him, as some say he *still* may be a 1st rounder (I don't see that, but he has unicorn defensive skills similar to Matisse Thybule). An NIL deal wouldn't make sense because I don't think he will seek to spend 2 more years in college (which is realistically what it would take to raise his draft stock)
Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that people should be paid on what their labor is worth, especially if that labor is driving a multi-billion dollar industry. The greed right now is not on the part of the players, but on the institutions that continually abuse their abilities for their own gain.
See that's fine and they should absolutely do that, an athlete only has so many years of earning power so they should maximize it as much as possible. If, for example, the rumored $8 million NIL deal Nico Iamaleava allegedly signed turns out to be true and then he turns out to be bad, I'd still think it rocks for Iamaleava that he secured the bag in that manner.
Wow Dimitri, thank you for tackling this incredibly difficult subject and laying out the facts for everyone to digest. I have always appreciated your honest and thorough articles. Worth every penny of my subscription. While I understand the need for an NIL program, I like your bagman analogy. I just can't help seeing Nick Nolte in Blue Chips and hearing the term "friends of the program". Times are changing in college sports. Buckle up. I think it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Joe or other mods here, can you re-post and/or update that article? Troy seems to be really behind this concept of having an on campus stadium by constantly tweeting about it so he must know some discussions about it going on at the higher levels. I personally think it would be great for recruiting and both student/alumni enthusiasm and turnout which will then lead to more NIL $ from donors and future donors too, I assume.
PS I also emailed the Bruin Fan Alliance NIL collective which I mentioned in my comments from a few weeks back below. They answered and said they are still up and running and will be announcing a few new things soon!
Readers may have already noticed this, and not that it means too much, but the creative agency who built the Men of Westwood site is the same team who built the Wooden Athletic Fund and 42 Society sites. One thing we can reasonably assume is that there are ties between all of these by the fact that they are using the same source to handle the marketing. Centralizing vendors is a standard business practice for any large organization.
Holy Batman! Not only that, they also do the website for the Mo Ostin Basketball Center (uclabasketballfacility.com) and the Wasserman Football Center (uclafootballfacility.com) in addition to the WAF and 42 Society (woodenathleticfund.com/42/). As a private investigator myself, this smells very fishy and might be worth looking into. No conflict of interest here, right?
Plus I noticed the Men of Westwood website has no Privacy Policy on it when they are collecting names and emails right on the front page. Only scam websites omit that part of the legalese usually required of any standard website collecting info since 2003. Does the AD office know they are heading towards a possible scandal here by helping promote them? Do the camps of Tyger and Jaime know their images are being used on a potentially illegal site? Plus did Jordan Brand OK the use of their uniforms in the graphics? This usually requires a disclaimer at the bottom stating the site is not affiliated with Jordan Brand, etc. Very unprofessional, in my opinion.
Additionally, I notice activity on Wayback Machine and https://archive.vn/www.menofwestwood.com recording and time stamping the website for changes which is another indication that somebody out there is looking into the potential violations. These are a tools used by us PIs recently when looking into what was said on websites, twitter, etc.
I asked my friend who is a legal researcher to take a look at the website she sent me some potential penalties of a website collecting data and not having a Privacy Policy in an article written by a friend of hers:
I've actually handled cases of hacked computers and networks leading to stolen data and it's not fun for the managers of the data without these proper legal notices in place from the beginning. It may be too late as they've probably already collected hundreds of private/personal information already. I see they do have a PP after the link goes to Stripe their credit card processor but not for the MOW website itself.
This is a mistake often made by small time business owners but not someone running a major fund raising campaign. This and the use of UCLA, Jordan Brand and Pac12 logos without trademark disclaimers (as these are not natural scene photos but intentional ad graphics) is just asking for trouble as those entities can also get sued if something goes wrong. Who ever is running this MOW site is not a very good business person from initial investigation and I'm talking to my friend who works at UCLA compliance later today to see what he says.
My point was actually not to further question MOW's legitimacy, but share that the fact the other sites are connected marketing-wise, that there must be some agreed upon connectivity by all stakeholders.
Just talked to my friend in UCLA compliance and he does not want to comment on this matter. They are focused on 42 Society now as their #1 priority so maybe there is some kind of internal discussions (probably not too friendly) between WAF and MOW but better for me not to comment any further. He did acknowledge that the creator of the website is the same company and they do many websites for other schools and organizations and each client controls the content so we'll see what the MOW owner does going forward with the points I made already.
Dimitri. Thank you so much for this information. Incredible research and unique ability to communicate your findings. I have thought since this came up that the value of the scholarship needs to be included in this conversation.
Good writeup DD. I'm wondering what happened to the Bruin Fan Alliance which I believe was being led by former Bruin football player Dietrich Riley. I think they were a non-profit and fairly well organized and transparent from what I remember. They even had a LA Times article written by Ben Bolch from what I recall. I see he's very successful now as a RE agent and active on Twitter but not tweeting about anything NIL related these days.
I appreciate your story and I am a donor of MoW. I am also a BRO subscriber and I am commenting here on my own accord. No one asked me to do that.
Here are my thoughts to your post:
I do think MoW is legit despite the lack of transparency you’re bringing up. Also, what BRO has said is that the school is trying to reach a goal of paying players $100,000 a year (not per month). I get the points you’re trying to make here but the Jaden Rashada money amount is WAY higher than that of what MoW is trying to strive for. That’s a big difference that you fail to mention or comment on. I also think you’re only looking for negatives as opposed to possibly giving this collective the benefit of doubt. Should there be more transparency though? Yes, I agree with you, 100%. But you did say Martin Jarmond, the Athletic Director for UCLA attached his name to it along with Ucla’s radio station. So maybe there is nothing wrong with it. You may think this is naive, but I also don’t see why with so many important names attached why they would be trying to scam or use the money for purposes other than what they stated. I’m also not donating a crazy amount that I’m not willing to lose if by the off chance it’s not legitimate. One other thing to note vs Tennessee’s site. They only give 90% of the money donated to the players. Where as 100% for MoW is supposedly going to the players. Maybe that’s why they don’t have benefits included with donation. I’d rather just give money and it be 100% to the players. Also another thing I forgot to mention is Jaime Jaquez and Tyger Campbell have a video endorsing this NIL fund too. You did not mention that as well. URL: https://youtu.be/eh8FCuIO9nI
I guess what I am getting at is, other than the transparency issue, are there any other reasons brought to you that caused you to be concerned about MoW? It seems like you’re reaching a bit. Just my opinion, just like you’re entitled to yours.
You’ve only given one example of where NIL turned out to not pay the athlete. I am not necessarily saying to have blind faith but at the same time I don’t think BRO would put its reputation on the line as well as our own AD for something that is not legitimate.
I want UCLA basketball (specifically) to be successful, and the stark reality is that college athletes will need to be paid (at least some of the better ones) otherwise why stay in school versus going to the NBA? Last thought, most of what Tracy pointed at was retaining some of our players, not necessarily for new recruitments. The only one I saw mentioned was an international prospect from France.
Did you reach out to the email listed for MoW? Did you reach out to Tracy or David for any comments? What’s the “recent activity that forced your hand”. You don’t mention that either. I’m playing devil’s advocate here and want all sides/angles covered.
According to the BRO guy (the one promoting MoW) the guy running MoW is shouldering all of the overhead required for now. I anticipate this will not be case indefinitely. I’m sure the plan is once they bring in enough steady revenue they will start using the corporate treasury for covering the overhead. It probably won’t be much but something around the 10% figure Tennessee’s collective does so. As such, don’t expect all your money to go only to the players, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. That 10% overhead indirectly benefits the players more than paying them directly.
Know what? As I said, I anticipate this to be the case because this is a corporate entity. It’s not a charity and the guy running it should not be forced to shoulder all the operating expenses indefinitely. Assuming the collective becomes successful, as we all hope it does someday, it would require hiring staff, renting office space, paying the bills, purchasing office furniture, supplies, and equipment, fundraising events, content for subscribing members etc.
The way it is right now the guy (or someone on his behalf) has registered the corporation to his house in Sherman Oaks. He’s incurring all the expenses himself, which is reasonable for now given he’s probably keeping operating expenses to a minimum and maximizing the money that goes to student-athletes. That’s not viable long term though. For the collective to succeed it needs to function like a successful business entity. Those expenses will enrich the collective enabling them to get more value to the student-athletes.
There were multiple podcasts / forum threads that BruinReportOnline did to tell us that the person running Mow doesn’t want to make it like other collectives for the very reason it will give 100% of what’s donated to the players. Again, this is assuming what BRO is telling us is accurate. So your anticipations are just a guess then? Thats all I was asking/getting at. You made it seem like you know for sure it will change when you’re not really sure, are you?
I agree that if it truly grows to something crazy that things will change but based on the amount people are donating it doesn’t look like it will get that far. Especially since we have articles like this one and people tweeting to discredit MoW for lack of transparency when essentially other programs are doing the same thing. Most of this “pay for play” was all under the table prior to two years ago. Ucla is so far behind because they didn’t cheat (at least to my knowledge)
I'm afraid pandora's box is already open. It is going to grow into something crazy and that will be very hard to undo. Once it is demonstrated that NIL money can buy championships, more billionaires are going to show up to contribute.
As I stated in my initial reply, “I anticipate” this to be the case. I don’t know for certain. I have no inside information. This is just based on trends we’ve seen from other collectives and what I’ve parsed from the BRO writers. The story is that the MoW guy got frustrated with the lack of initiative on the NIL front among UCLA constituents and decided to step up to the plate and get it rolling himself. According to one of BRO guys (I think Tracy is his name or something), he is shouldering the costs “for now”. How long this is for, I couldn’t say for certain but it suggests the plan thus far is to get it going and then reassess the business model at a later point.
I do agree that MoW could and should be more transparent about its operation. I’ve emailed them and they respond promptly with very detailed answers defending their positions. While I share some of their larger picture concerns about problems with transparency in NIL, it still doesn’t explain or justify the complete black box around their operation.
I do think saying that Jarmond endorses MoW is maybe too active voice. I would say more that he and the athletic department tolerate it, but they don't do any active promotion of the MoW outside of that one press release (which is the only mention MoW has on the UCLA athletics website). I noted that they have ads that run during radio broadcasts, and yes I will also note that they have an ad that plays during home basketball games at Pauley, but that is less an endorsement and more a sign that the collective has enough money to pay for ad space. The Jaime and Tyger video falls into this same bucket; they did not endorse MoW so much as they were paid to endorse them. I'm not casting aspersions on them for this, by the way - again, players should secure the bag in whatever way they can.
On a similar note, the ad buys for radio and home games also leads me to believe either 100% of the money is not actually going to the players (because no radio station or college is running an ad for a collective out of the goodness of their heart) or someone is footing the bill for the moment while the collective gets its footing, which is again where the transparency bit comes into play.
I do think transparency is a hugely-critical part of my concerns, for a host of reasons, but I also mentioned the slap-dash nature that MoW seems to be presenting itself to the public as a problem. I brought up their website for a host of the reasons, the least of which is that it's the only front-facing way to interact with the collective at all and does not present as a reputable operation but rather one that was thrown together at the last minute and is just asking you to trust that it knows what it's doing. That's why transparency is important, because casual fans are not going to be willing to engage with an operation running the way that MoW operates (this is something that BRO has alluded to but their solution is to "get over it" rather than push for the collective itself to make the necessary changes, which isn't really a good answer).
As I stated, I'm a realist, so I'm not opposed to collectives in general, but I think the way MoW has tried to create buy-in from the fanbase also leaves a lot to be desired. I mentioned it on Twitter and hinted at it here, but the way most of these launch is by bringing in a few major donors to show legitimacy and generate buy-in from the average, small dollar donors. Consider it a Pied Piper Effect, or better yet relate it to how political fundraising works, where campaigns will tout contributions from major benefactors while still asking for small donations from average fans.
I would say the AD is not putting its reputation on the line in the same way that BRO is. Again, the AD has barely mentioned the collective and does not put it in their advertising for the various programs (you would think that the email soliciting for season tickets following the season would be the perfect time to mention MoW, but instead they go unsaid). But BRO is absolutely putting its reputation on the line in a way that frankly does not make a lot of sense. The site has continually said the person behind MoW is a savvy marketing guy who knows what he's doing, but they're doing none of the things that successful collectives do. There are no prominent whale donors. There are no public front-facing leaders whatsoever. They have no social media to speak of. They don't even have former athletes in any sort of roles, which is something I noticed a LOT of collectives do because it gives the average fan something to latch onto and uses their reputational clout (this is where bringing in a Caleb Wilson or a Diedrich Riley, both former players who have publicly looked to get involved with starting a UCLA NIL, would have been really smart!). These are all huge flaws that BRO is not going to solve, and does not even bother to address. That's not ideal!
Again, from a marketing standpoint, I think the idea of giving 100% of the money to players is admirable but a bad way to actually generate donations because you are not offering anything in return. Yes, some people like yourself are willing to give and expect nothing in return, but even political campaigns will give you a bumper sticker if you donate to them. Human nature is that people will be more willing to give if they get something tangible in return, and a promise that UCLA may or may not be able to bring in good players if you donate is not a tangible return here, especially because the collective as it currently stands does not have the funds to compete for top end talent. Plus, a well-run collective should probably have some full-time staff that is coordinating everything, and you want to compensate them fairly for their time (again, this is where bringing in former athletes for some of these positions could be seen as a positive by the larger community).
Also, please don't take this as any ill will towards you or even towards BRO. I think it's perfectly fine if people donate to MoW or any collective, and BRO's brand of journalism is helpful more often than not. And like I said, MoW is probably legitimate, but is making a ton of missteps that is hurting its ability to actually raise necessary funds to be competitive.
You never really addressed a lot of my questions such as “recent activity forced our hands”. What forced your hands to write this article in the first place? You say you don’t have any ill will, but your actions sort of say you do (not your words)
Again, you dodged my question about what forced your hands to write this article. That is the only thing I’m asking. I don’t care about BRO. I care about the success of UCLA basketball and football. And the reality is, we have to pay athletes now due to NIL.
If you’re a UCLA fan, you may be hurting the program with this article and all of your comments. You do realize that? I don’t know 100% who is right. I just would first make sure what you are saying is accurate before you harm a potentially positive thing for the program
I would think the better way to question MoW, is to propose an alternative way that we can raise money for athletes so our programs get better. Just criticising MoW for lack of transparency(which I think many donation programs have not much transparency)- this can be very damaging and I would hope as a fan you would suggest better ways then how to do NIL. Otherwise, we will lose recruits like we did with Marcus Adams Jr to Kansas because they were able to offer more NIL money. Again, I want to reiterate I truly don’t know if MoW is telling it how it is. You may be right , i just think you should get clarification and think about the damaging effects of this article before publishing it
See, this is how I know you don't actually care about the merits of what I've said, because I list out exactly what my problems are with this specific collective that is being pushed by a certain subset of UCLA fans, and instead of addressing these problems you are resorting to "do you want to hurt the program?"
Which is an insane argument to make! Because let's break this down: if this article ends up hurting the Men of Westwood and prevents them from raising the necessary funds, then that means that the problems brought up in the article resonated with a lot of people and the collective was unwilling to address them, meaning it wasn't a good collective in the first place. And if the collective is actually good, then this article either won't matter or will prompt it to make the necessary changes to bring more people on board. There is no downside to an article like this unless your viewpoint is that the MoW is good and any criticism of it is bad, which means you really aren't in any position to make a comment.
It's been two years since NIL became official policy around the country, and MoW are doing things differently than any other collective at a top college. This means they're either way smarter than everyone else which, looking at their results, seems doubtful, or they're doing things that are actively hurting their ability to be competitive. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Lastly, it is not my job to fix UCLA athletics. My job is actually to be a teacher. But I've laid out exactly what issues this collective has, and how either this collective or a future UCLA-aligned one can be successful in the future. If you're not going to bother addressing those facts as raised, then there is no more point in having this discussion.
Probably multiple millions, especially since Jaime is likely getting NBA money this next year. Not exactly worth it, and realistically it's about time UCLA moved on to the next era anyway.
I ask because I think UCLA would be the undisputed #1 ranked team if he came back. Would it require many millions? I don't think he is a first round pick. If he is, then this is not a conversation. He might be a two way deal guy like Juzang which would cap his earnings at a few hundred thousand. I think he would get the G-League salary + the pro rated NBA minimum. But from his perspective, he is obviously going to develop a lot more in the G league than in college so taking less money in the pros might be worth it to jump start his pro career.
Sam Vecenie of the Athletic had Jaquez as the second pick of the second round. It would not surprise me to see him sneak into the back end of the 1st round just based on his performance down the stretch and how the rest of the stay/go decisions play out. Even then, Jaime's had four years, and it might just be a case of wanting to move on.
Same goes for Tyger, who doesn't have nearly the same NBA chances due to his size but could choose to ply his trade overseas after five years with the program.
I can see Tyger playing for a decade plus in Europe. Michael Roll is still playing. Too bad the overseas salaries generally are not public, but I'm sure it's a better living than an entry level job here.
A very well written article, and hits on all of the qualms and concerns I have about the NIL arrangement. I do believe that athletes becoming employees is inevitable (at least in a state like CA), but the power-brokers will go down swinging on this one
I read DD's article, and I still am clueless. Do my NIL donated dollars go further with a non-transparent organization or with a bureaucratically laden administration?
Can I be honest about something? Depending on how much you are spending: they're not going far anywhere.
If you are a bigger donor (think $15k or so) you're probably going to get more out of giving to a collective because you are giving a tangible amount towards a specific outcome. If you're a small-time donor (like $1k), you're probably getting more out of a donation to the school, because you'll at least get something in return. And then the biggest of donors (the guys who can drop $100k or more) have options, and honestly could even bypass a collective completely if they really wanted to.
Interesting article I just read about how the transfer portal and NIL has turned the tourney into an opportunity for great players at smaller university to get poached/recruited by larger universities. Interesting take by Dusty May, head coach of Cinderella Florida Atlantic.
This was an incredible piece, and I especially appreciate the insight and perspective on BRO.
though I have liked BRO/Tracy around coaching shuffle periods, nobody covers the Bruins better than The Mighty Bruins / BruinsNation . Big time lurker but I read weekly - thank you for your hard work!
Well written Dimitri and lays out some of the ugliness with NILs, and athletic departments/universities wanting to keep the bag.
I guess the problem I have though is where the system is headed. You kind of alluded to this but the eventual endgame is unsustainable for any conference outside of the Big Ten or the SEC, and I’m afraid that will have huge ramifications for the rest of Division I (including the other A-5 schools, G5, FCS and non football schools). Possibly DII and DIII as well.
It feels like we’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. I just don’t see a world where paying athletes as employees won’t result in the majority of athletic departments shutting down their programs, and that will be a sad day for schools and prospective athletes everywhere.
I think all of us can agree that athletes should be compensated for their fair value, but I’m with Notre Dame’s AD when he said on a podcast recently that college sports is better off having scholarships factored into any type of employee compensation—because let’s be honest: anybody who had access to some of the resources these athletes have would be paying through the nose in real life. As a former FCS athlete I know that even the difference in what we had access to was way better than what typical students or employees had available to them, and that shouldn’t be discounted either.
Also we need a true minor league for the NFL where four and five stars can go to ply their trade, and let the kids who want to come to school and get a degree but still compete do so. NBA, NHL and MLB have that. NBA needs to get rid of the one and done rule as well.
I think that’s way better than the end game where all but 32-64 athletic departments have to fold because they can’t pay athletes as employees, and hundreds of thousands of kids who had the opportunity to get their degree would lose that chance.
Also, as a recent subscriber to BRO, I have to say that I appreciate the insider access it provides, and I actually think Tracy is pretty fair and critical in his coverage of UCLA athletics. Mike as well.
That said I still appreciate the independent voice you guys bring, and hope you, Joe and Greg get more help down the line (money, writers etc.)
While I'm always open to donations (I'm currently paying two college tuitions, one of which is the out-of-state version of our favorite public school in Westwood), I'm just a subscriber here. Joe and Dimitri are the gentlemen who need and deserve our support, and I know they are always open to anyone else writing here - hint, hint.
So somebody has finally found a name by googling "men of westood" + "business registration"? But we can't say if the company and the NIL are the same yet as it hasn't been confirmed or listed on the website.
Plus who ever owns the site definitely reads these comments as right after I posted above about the Privacy Policy missing, they put it up!! Plus it doesn't list a company or name within the policy so still no transparency. And they put a date of March 1 when it wasn't even on the site. What a liar!
You can check out the differences in versions timestamped here for evidence that the Privacy Policy did not exist until today: https://archive.vn/www.menofwestwood.com
I stand corrected. The Privacy Policy does, in fact, list "Men of Westwood Inc and websites" at the very top therefore, by googling "Men of Westwood Inc" you do get a person's name and address. Now whether this is the person actually running the NIL collective and website is still in question. What I worry about is that this person (or a completely different person who has nothing to do with the NIL collective) is now putting himself in an unenviable position to answer questions posed by others such as "bruinballer" has when he could avoid all of this by being transparent as Dimitri has so astutely argued in his post that only 4 active of the 136 NIL collectives in the On3 database do not list a founder with MOW being one of them. So why fight the absolute norm and gain the trust of all Bruins around the world who may want to donate to the MOW? Why the secrecy? It just creates more questions about "who and what are you doing with my money" when it doesn't need to by being transparent.
Additionally, after discussing this with a few of my friends who are friendly BRO members, they gave me info of BRO posts on this matter that say things like "Plenty of blame...but no solution. ...if ...Dimitri understand NIL is what it takes to compete with top players...then propose an alternative" which seems to be the general tone of most BRO members. Excuse me? I think Dimitri is the voice of reason here and without his piece, the general public (and other school boards) which are already making fun of MOW and its non-transparent operation, the BRO narrative will continue and further create a negative image of UCLA athletics and its NIL efforts which are then being told to potential recruits. Because of Dimitri's post and some comments I made (understandably a bit harsh but not sorry for) they did correct their website by adding a Privacy Policy which I commend and is a start of some corrections they need to make.
So let's keep pushing and try to get MOW to be transparent and then we might just be all on board and creating something that will actually be effective in getting the best athletes for basketball and football. There is a good portion of the literally hundreds of thousands of UCLA alumni such as myself that are more than willing to help out if the NIL collective is being transparent and I know exactly how my money is going to help. For example, I contributed to the UCLA Centennial Campaign which collected nearly $5.5 Billion dollars from 220,000 donors who gave 574,000 gifts. Did you know that 81% of those were under $1,000 and 95% under $10,000? Those numbers right there is one part of the transparency needed to get people on board and until the MOW realizes this, they shouldn't be reaching out outside of BRO (which I also heard is a suggestion made by the top BRO operator himself) then complaining that Dimitri's post has "no solutions."
To BRO members reading this: You are free to copy and paste my posts to the BRO board although I know it will take some guts to do so. But wouldn't it be worth it to have some other viewpoints expressed by the outside world and then convince MOW so that it can have several thousand more people donate to the MOW since so many of us are asking for the transparency and that's all we want? Why hide this information when 95%+ of the NIL collectives listed on On3 are being transparent?
Just a heads up, I'm gonna be in the comments for this one, so if you have questions or things you want me to respond to, let me know. I'll also try to clarify things when necessary.
Thank you Dimitri on the great piece! As a private investigator myself, I appreciate the background on NIL and details you provided. I also found some fishy things about the MOW website which I've commented on below.
Hi Dimitri, a few new developments which I've posted a comment on below after I had some private discussions with my BRO friends. Thank you again for writing this and hopefully, we can get MOW to correct their ways in regards to transparency as they have already done 1 positive thing which I believe was caused by our actions!
is any of our players' NIL money public? Always hear about so and so getting a few million or a few hundred k to go to other schools.
Not to any real extent. There were rumors that Dante Moore decided to come to UCLA because they were able to put together a competitive-enough package for him, but other than that not really.
Any idea what competitive would mean? Do we know what other schools were offering? I would assume it’s 7 figures or close to it.
I think it is a 7 figure deal of some kind, but also not a "here's a few million dollars" kinda thing, but more "we can guarantee this much, and then you're in LA and we have connections that can get you more".
I also have a sneaking suspicion MoW was not behind the Moore deal, but rather someone with actual deep pockets (I would guess Wasserman since he still wants Chip to be successful as he's the one who drove the push to hire him in the first place, but could be others).
btw who is this guy on twitter? carlos?
https://twitter.com/equitybruin/status/1641548964783587328
says he's going to discuss this topic on monday on his stream or something? anyone know where to find this?
Carlos and Greg have their "No Truck Stops" podcast where they discuss Pac12 sports. Below is the link tree:
https://linktr.ee/notruckstopspod
Carlos is good. Not to get too political, but he may be a bit leftist for some of you, but he's good people and his podcast is really good if you want to hear a general fan perspective (it is in many ways too homerific about the Pac-12 in general, which makes it even funnier).
18 months minimum to get back to baseline. I think it's the right decision for him, as some say he *still* may be a 1st rounder (I don't see that, but he has unicorn defensive skills similar to Matisse Thybule). An NIL deal wouldn't make sense because I don't think he will seek to spend 2 more years in college (which is realistically what it would take to raise his draft stock)
Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that people should be paid on what their labor is worth, especially if that labor is driving a multi-billion dollar industry. The greed right now is not on the part of the players, but on the institutions that continually abuse their abilities for their own gain.
See that's fine and they should absolutely do that, an athlete only has so many years of earning power so they should maximize it as much as possible. If, for example, the rumored $8 million NIL deal Nico Iamaleava allegedly signed turns out to be true and then he turns out to be bad, I'd still think it rocks for Iamaleava that he secured the bag in that manner.
It’s not greed if an athlete follows the money.
Wow Dimitri, thank you for tackling this incredibly difficult subject and laying out the facts for everyone to digest. I have always appreciated your honest and thorough articles. Worth every penny of my subscription. While I understand the need for an NIL program, I like your bagman analogy. I just can't help seeing Nick Nolte in Blue Chips and hearing the term "friends of the program". Times are changing in college sports. Buckle up. I think it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Different subject but Troy Aikman has spoken again!
https://twitter.com/TroyAikman/status/1647741215071432704
Time to revisit Joe's great article from last year, especially the last sentence.
https://www.themightybruin.com/p/smqb-ucla-bruins-football-future-stadium-options
Joe or other mods here, can you re-post and/or update that article? Troy seems to be really behind this concept of having an on campus stadium by constantly tweeting about it so he must know some discussions about it going on at the higher levels. I personally think it would be great for recruiting and both student/alumni enthusiasm and turnout which will then lead to more NIL $ from donors and future donors too, I assume.
PS I also emailed the Bruin Fan Alliance NIL collective which I mentioned in my comments from a few weeks back below. They answered and said they are still up and running and will be announcing a few new things soon!
Readers may have already noticed this, and not that it means too much, but the creative agency who built the Men of Westwood site is the same team who built the Wooden Athletic Fund and 42 Society sites. One thing we can reasonably assume is that there are ties between all of these by the fact that they are using the same source to handle the marketing. Centralizing vendors is a standard business practice for any large organization.
Holy Batman! Not only that, they also do the website for the Mo Ostin Basketball Center (uclabasketballfacility.com) and the Wasserman Football Center (uclafootballfacility.com) in addition to the WAF and 42 Society (woodenathleticfund.com/42/). As a private investigator myself, this smells very fishy and might be worth looking into. No conflict of interest here, right?
Plus I noticed the Men of Westwood website has no Privacy Policy on it when they are collecting names and emails right on the front page. Only scam websites omit that part of the legalese usually required of any standard website collecting info since 2003. Does the AD office know they are heading towards a possible scandal here by helping promote them? Do the camps of Tyger and Jaime know their images are being used on a potentially illegal site? Plus did Jordan Brand OK the use of their uniforms in the graphics? This usually requires a disclaimer at the bottom stating the site is not affiliated with Jordan Brand, etc. Very unprofessional, in my opinion.
Additionally, I notice activity on Wayback Machine and https://archive.vn/www.menofwestwood.com recording and time stamping the website for changes which is another indication that somebody out there is looking into the potential violations. These are a tools used by us PIs recently when looking into what was said on websites, twitter, etc.
I asked my friend who is a legal researcher to take a look at the website she sent me some potential penalties of a website collecting data and not having a Privacy Policy in an article written by a friend of hers:
https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/fines-no-privacy-policy/
I've actually handled cases of hacked computers and networks leading to stolen data and it's not fun for the managers of the data without these proper legal notices in place from the beginning. It may be too late as they've probably already collected hundreds of private/personal information already. I see they do have a PP after the link goes to Stripe their credit card processor but not for the MOW website itself.
This is a mistake often made by small time business owners but not someone running a major fund raising campaign. This and the use of UCLA, Jordan Brand and Pac12 logos without trademark disclaimers (as these are not natural scene photos but intentional ad graphics) is just asking for trouble as those entities can also get sued if something goes wrong. Who ever is running this MOW site is not a very good business person from initial investigation and I'm talking to my friend who works at UCLA compliance later today to see what he says.
My point was actually not to further question MOW's legitimacy, but share that the fact the other sites are connected marketing-wise, that there must be some agreed upon connectivity by all stakeholders.
Just talked to my friend in UCLA compliance and he does not want to comment on this matter. They are focused on 42 Society now as their #1 priority so maybe there is some kind of internal discussions (probably not too friendly) between WAF and MOW but better for me not to comment any further. He did acknowledge that the creator of the website is the same company and they do many websites for other schools and organizations and each client controls the content so we'll see what the MOW owner does going forward with the points I made already.
Dimitri. Thank you so much for this information. Incredible research and unique ability to communicate your findings. I have thought since this came up that the value of the scholarship needs to be included in this conversation.
Thanks Tamara
Good writeup DD. I'm wondering what happened to the Bruin Fan Alliance which I believe was being led by former Bruin football player Dietrich Riley. I think they were a non-profit and fairly well organized and transparent from what I remember. They even had a LA Times article written by Ben Bolch from what I recall. I see he's very successful now as a RE agent and active on Twitter but not tweeting about anything NIL related these days.
I appreciate your story and I am a donor of MoW. I am also a BRO subscriber and I am commenting here on my own accord. No one asked me to do that.
Here are my thoughts to your post:
I do think MoW is legit despite the lack of transparency you’re bringing up. Also, what BRO has said is that the school is trying to reach a goal of paying players $100,000 a year (not per month). I get the points you’re trying to make here but the Jaden Rashada money amount is WAY higher than that of what MoW is trying to strive for. That’s a big difference that you fail to mention or comment on. I also think you’re only looking for negatives as opposed to possibly giving this collective the benefit of doubt. Should there be more transparency though? Yes, I agree with you, 100%. But you did say Martin Jarmond, the Athletic Director for UCLA attached his name to it along with Ucla’s radio station. So maybe there is nothing wrong with it. You may think this is naive, but I also don’t see why with so many important names attached why they would be trying to scam or use the money for purposes other than what they stated. I’m also not donating a crazy amount that I’m not willing to lose if by the off chance it’s not legitimate. One other thing to note vs Tennessee’s site. They only give 90% of the money donated to the players. Where as 100% for MoW is supposedly going to the players. Maybe that’s why they don’t have benefits included with donation. I’d rather just give money and it be 100% to the players. Also another thing I forgot to mention is Jaime Jaquez and Tyger Campbell have a video endorsing this NIL fund too. You did not mention that as well. URL: https://youtu.be/eh8FCuIO9nI
I guess what I am getting at is, other than the transparency issue, are there any other reasons brought to you that caused you to be concerned about MoW? It seems like you’re reaching a bit. Just my opinion, just like you’re entitled to yours.
You’ve only given one example of where NIL turned out to not pay the athlete. I am not necessarily saying to have blind faith but at the same time I don’t think BRO would put its reputation on the line as well as our own AD for something that is not legitimate.
I want UCLA basketball (specifically) to be successful, and the stark reality is that college athletes will need to be paid (at least some of the better ones) otherwise why stay in school versus going to the NBA? Last thought, most of what Tracy pointed at was retaining some of our players, not necessarily for new recruitments. The only one I saw mentioned was an international prospect from France.
Did you reach out to the email listed for MoW? Did you reach out to Tracy or David for any comments? What’s the “recent activity that forced your hand”. You don’t mention that either. I’m playing devil’s advocate here and want all sides/angles covered.
According to the BRO guy (the one promoting MoW) the guy running MoW is shouldering all of the overhead required for now. I anticipate this will not be case indefinitely. I’m sure the plan is once they bring in enough steady revenue they will start using the corporate treasury for covering the overhead. It probably won’t be much but something around the 10% figure Tennessee’s collective does so. As such, don’t expect all your money to go only to the players, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. That 10% overhead indirectly benefits the players more than paying them directly.
And you know this how?
Know what? As I said, I anticipate this to be the case because this is a corporate entity. It’s not a charity and the guy running it should not be forced to shoulder all the operating expenses indefinitely. Assuming the collective becomes successful, as we all hope it does someday, it would require hiring staff, renting office space, paying the bills, purchasing office furniture, supplies, and equipment, fundraising events, content for subscribing members etc.
The way it is right now the guy (or someone on his behalf) has registered the corporation to his house in Sherman Oaks. He’s incurring all the expenses himself, which is reasonable for now given he’s probably keeping operating expenses to a minimum and maximizing the money that goes to student-athletes. That’s not viable long term though. For the collective to succeed it needs to function like a successful business entity. Those expenses will enrich the collective enabling them to get more value to the student-athletes.
There were multiple podcasts / forum threads that BruinReportOnline did to tell us that the person running Mow doesn’t want to make it like other collectives for the very reason it will give 100% of what’s donated to the players. Again, this is assuming what BRO is telling us is accurate. So your anticipations are just a guess then? Thats all I was asking/getting at. You made it seem like you know for sure it will change when you’re not really sure, are you?
I agree that if it truly grows to something crazy that things will change but based on the amount people are donating it doesn’t look like it will get that far. Especially since we have articles like this one and people tweeting to discredit MoW for lack of transparency when essentially other programs are doing the same thing. Most of this “pay for play” was all under the table prior to two years ago. Ucla is so far behind because they didn’t cheat (at least to my knowledge)
I'm afraid pandora's box is already open. It is going to grow into something crazy and that will be very hard to undo. Once it is demonstrated that NIL money can buy championships, more billionaires are going to show up to contribute.
As I stated in my initial reply, “I anticipate” this to be the case. I don’t know for certain. I have no inside information. This is just based on trends we’ve seen from other collectives and what I’ve parsed from the BRO writers. The story is that the MoW guy got frustrated with the lack of initiative on the NIL front among UCLA constituents and decided to step up to the plate and get it rolling himself. According to one of BRO guys (I think Tracy is his name or something), he is shouldering the costs “for now”. How long this is for, I couldn’t say for certain but it suggests the plan thus far is to get it going and then reassess the business model at a later point.
I do agree that MoW could and should be more transparent about its operation. I’ve emailed them and they respond promptly with very detailed answers defending their positions. While I share some of their larger picture concerns about problems with transparency in NIL, it still doesn’t explain or justify the complete black box around their operation.
So I'll address a few of these things.
I do think saying that Jarmond endorses MoW is maybe too active voice. I would say more that he and the athletic department tolerate it, but they don't do any active promotion of the MoW outside of that one press release (which is the only mention MoW has on the UCLA athletics website). I noted that they have ads that run during radio broadcasts, and yes I will also note that they have an ad that plays during home basketball games at Pauley, but that is less an endorsement and more a sign that the collective has enough money to pay for ad space. The Jaime and Tyger video falls into this same bucket; they did not endorse MoW so much as they were paid to endorse them. I'm not casting aspersions on them for this, by the way - again, players should secure the bag in whatever way they can.
On a similar note, the ad buys for radio and home games also leads me to believe either 100% of the money is not actually going to the players (because no radio station or college is running an ad for a collective out of the goodness of their heart) or someone is footing the bill for the moment while the collective gets its footing, which is again where the transparency bit comes into play.
I do think transparency is a hugely-critical part of my concerns, for a host of reasons, but I also mentioned the slap-dash nature that MoW seems to be presenting itself to the public as a problem. I brought up their website for a host of the reasons, the least of which is that it's the only front-facing way to interact with the collective at all and does not present as a reputable operation but rather one that was thrown together at the last minute and is just asking you to trust that it knows what it's doing. That's why transparency is important, because casual fans are not going to be willing to engage with an operation running the way that MoW operates (this is something that BRO has alluded to but their solution is to "get over it" rather than push for the collective itself to make the necessary changes, which isn't really a good answer).
As I stated, I'm a realist, so I'm not opposed to collectives in general, but I think the way MoW has tried to create buy-in from the fanbase also leaves a lot to be desired. I mentioned it on Twitter and hinted at it here, but the way most of these launch is by bringing in a few major donors to show legitimacy and generate buy-in from the average, small dollar donors. Consider it a Pied Piper Effect, or better yet relate it to how political fundraising works, where campaigns will tout contributions from major benefactors while still asking for small donations from average fans.
I would say the AD is not putting its reputation on the line in the same way that BRO is. Again, the AD has barely mentioned the collective and does not put it in their advertising for the various programs (you would think that the email soliciting for season tickets following the season would be the perfect time to mention MoW, but instead they go unsaid). But BRO is absolutely putting its reputation on the line in a way that frankly does not make a lot of sense. The site has continually said the person behind MoW is a savvy marketing guy who knows what he's doing, but they're doing none of the things that successful collectives do. There are no prominent whale donors. There are no public front-facing leaders whatsoever. They have no social media to speak of. They don't even have former athletes in any sort of roles, which is something I noticed a LOT of collectives do because it gives the average fan something to latch onto and uses their reputational clout (this is where bringing in a Caleb Wilson or a Diedrich Riley, both former players who have publicly looked to get involved with starting a UCLA NIL, would have been really smart!). These are all huge flaws that BRO is not going to solve, and does not even bother to address. That's not ideal!
Again, from a marketing standpoint, I think the idea of giving 100% of the money to players is admirable but a bad way to actually generate donations because you are not offering anything in return. Yes, some people like yourself are willing to give and expect nothing in return, but even political campaigns will give you a bumper sticker if you donate to them. Human nature is that people will be more willing to give if they get something tangible in return, and a promise that UCLA may or may not be able to bring in good players if you donate is not a tangible return here, especially because the collective as it currently stands does not have the funds to compete for top end talent. Plus, a well-run collective should probably have some full-time staff that is coordinating everything, and you want to compensate them fairly for their time (again, this is where bringing in former athletes for some of these positions could be seen as a positive by the larger community).
Also, please don't take this as any ill will towards you or even towards BRO. I think it's perfectly fine if people donate to MoW or any collective, and BRO's brand of journalism is helpful more often than not. And like I said, MoW is probably legitimate, but is making a ton of missteps that is hurting its ability to actually raise necessary funds to be competitive.
You never really addressed a lot of my questions such as “recent activity forced our hands”. What forced your hands to write this article in the first place? You say you don’t have any ill will, but your actions sort of say you do (not your words)
Is your big problem here that I was mean to BRO? Because that's the only thing I talked about that you really seem to care about.
Again, you dodged my question about what forced your hands to write this article. That is the only thing I’m asking. I don’t care about BRO. I care about the success of UCLA basketball and football. And the reality is, we have to pay athletes now due to NIL.
If you’re a UCLA fan, you may be hurting the program with this article and all of your comments. You do realize that? I don’t know 100% who is right. I just would first make sure what you are saying is accurate before you harm a potentially positive thing for the program
I would think the better way to question MoW, is to propose an alternative way that we can raise money for athletes so our programs get better. Just criticising MoW for lack of transparency(which I think many donation programs have not much transparency)- this can be very damaging and I would hope as a fan you would suggest better ways then how to do NIL. Otherwise, we will lose recruits like we did with Marcus Adams Jr to Kansas because they were able to offer more NIL money. Again, I want to reiterate I truly don’t know if MoW is telling it how it is. You may be right , i just think you should get clarification and think about the damaging effects of this article before publishing it
See, this is how I know you don't actually care about the merits of what I've said, because I list out exactly what my problems are with this specific collective that is being pushed by a certain subset of UCLA fans, and instead of addressing these problems you are resorting to "do you want to hurt the program?"
Which is an insane argument to make! Because let's break this down: if this article ends up hurting the Men of Westwood and prevents them from raising the necessary funds, then that means that the problems brought up in the article resonated with a lot of people and the collective was unwilling to address them, meaning it wasn't a good collective in the first place. And if the collective is actually good, then this article either won't matter or will prompt it to make the necessary changes to bring more people on board. There is no downside to an article like this unless your viewpoint is that the MoW is good and any criticism of it is bad, which means you really aren't in any position to make a comment.
It's been two years since NIL became official policy around the country, and MoW are doing things differently than any other collective at a top college. This means they're either way smarter than everyone else which, looking at their results, seems doubtful, or they're doing things that are actively hurting their ability to be competitive. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Lastly, it is not my job to fix UCLA athletics. My job is actually to be a teacher. But I've laid out exactly what issues this collective has, and how either this collective or a future UCLA-aligned one can be successful in the future. If you're not going to bother addressing those facts as raised, then there is no more point in having this discussion.
Wonder how much NIL money it would take to bring Jaime and Tyger back for their final season.
Probably multiple millions, especially since Jaime is likely getting NBA money this next year. Not exactly worth it, and realistically it's about time UCLA moved on to the next era anyway.
I ask because I think UCLA would be the undisputed #1 ranked team if he came back. Would it require many millions? I don't think he is a first round pick. If he is, then this is not a conversation. He might be a two way deal guy like Juzang which would cap his earnings at a few hundred thousand. I think he would get the G-League salary + the pro rated NBA minimum. But from his perspective, he is obviously going to develop a lot more in the G league than in college so taking less money in the pros might be worth it to jump start his pro career.
Sam Vecenie of the Athletic had Jaquez as the second pick of the second round. It would not surprise me to see him sneak into the back end of the 1st round just based on his performance down the stretch and how the rest of the stay/go decisions play out. Even then, Jaime's had four years, and it might just be a case of wanting to move on.
Same goes for Tyger, who doesn't have nearly the same NBA chances due to his size but could choose to ply his trade overseas after five years with the program.
I can see Tyger playing for a decade plus in Europe. Michael Roll is still playing. Too bad the overseas salaries generally are not public, but I'm sure it's a better living than an entry level job here.
Better than a lot of jobs here lol.
A very well written article, and hits on all of the qualms and concerns I have about the NIL arrangement. I do believe that athletes becoming employees is inevitable (at least in a state like CA), but the power-brokers will go down swinging on this one
I read DD's article, and I still am clueless. Do my NIL donated dollars go further with a non-transparent organization or with a bureaucratically laden administration?
Can I be honest about something? Depending on how much you are spending: they're not going far anywhere.
If you are a bigger donor (think $15k or so) you're probably going to get more out of giving to a collective because you are giving a tangible amount towards a specific outcome. If you're a small-time donor (like $1k), you're probably getting more out of a donation to the school, because you'll at least get something in return. And then the biggest of donors (the guys who can drop $100k or more) have options, and honestly could even bypass a collective completely if they really wanted to.
What if all I want in return is for UCLA to be able to land better players ?
then $15k isn't going to do it.
Well of course, not just from one person. The whole purpose of a collective is to get multiple donations from multiple people
Interesting article I just read about how the transfer portal and NIL has turned the tourney into an opportunity for great players at smaller university to get poached/recruited by larger universities. Interesting take by Dusty May, head coach of Cinderella Florida Atlantic.
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/sports/college/basketball/2023/03/29/fau-coach-dusty-may-says-players-being-poached-during-run-to-the-final-four/70058958007/
This was an incredible piece, and I especially appreciate the insight and perspective on BRO.
though I have liked BRO/Tracy around coaching shuffle periods, nobody covers the Bruins better than The Mighty Bruins / BruinsNation . Big time lurker but I read weekly - thank you for your hard work!
Well written Dimitri and lays out some of the ugliness with NILs, and athletic departments/universities wanting to keep the bag.
I guess the problem I have though is where the system is headed. You kind of alluded to this but the eventual endgame is unsustainable for any conference outside of the Big Ten or the SEC, and I’m afraid that will have huge ramifications for the rest of Division I (including the other A-5 schools, G5, FCS and non football schools). Possibly DII and DIII as well.
It feels like we’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. I just don’t see a world where paying athletes as employees won’t result in the majority of athletic departments shutting down their programs, and that will be a sad day for schools and prospective athletes everywhere.
I think all of us can agree that athletes should be compensated for their fair value, but I’m with Notre Dame’s AD when he said on a podcast recently that college sports is better off having scholarships factored into any type of employee compensation—because let’s be honest: anybody who had access to some of the resources these athletes have would be paying through the nose in real life. As a former FCS athlete I know that even the difference in what we had access to was way better than what typical students or employees had available to them, and that shouldn’t be discounted either.
Also we need a true minor league for the NFL where four and five stars can go to ply their trade, and let the kids who want to come to school and get a degree but still compete do so. NBA, NHL and MLB have that. NBA needs to get rid of the one and done rule as well.
I think that’s way better than the end game where all but 32-64 athletic departments have to fold because they can’t pay athletes as employees, and hundreds of thousands of kids who had the opportunity to get their degree would lose that chance.
Also, as a recent subscriber to BRO, I have to say that I appreciate the insider access it provides, and I actually think Tracy is pretty fair and critical in his coverage of UCLA athletics. Mike as well.
That said I still appreciate the independent voice you guys bring, and hope you, Joe and Greg get more help down the line (money, writers etc.)
While I'm always open to donations (I'm currently paying two college tuitions, one of which is the out-of-state version of our favorite public school in Westwood), I'm just a subscriber here. Joe and Dimitri are the gentlemen who need and deserve our support, and I know they are always open to anyone else writing here - hint, hint.
Jaime Jaquez Jr. named Lute Olsen National Player of the Year. Well deserved. Surely going to miss him and wish him only the best.
Great honor for a special player and person. Thrilled for him.
So who is Mr. Graiwer anyways? What is his connection to UCLA? What is his background?
So somebody has finally found a name by googling "men of westood" + "business registration"? But we can't say if the company and the NIL are the same yet as it hasn't been confirmed or listed on the website.
Plus who ever owns the site definitely reads these comments as right after I posted above about the Privacy Policy missing, they put it up!! Plus it doesn't list a company or name within the policy so still no transparency. And they put a date of March 1 when it wasn't even on the site. What a liar!
You can check out the differences in versions timestamped here for evidence that the Privacy Policy did not exist until today: https://archive.vn/www.menofwestwood.com
I stand corrected. The Privacy Policy does, in fact, list "Men of Westwood Inc and websites" at the very top therefore, by googling "Men of Westwood Inc" you do get a person's name and address. Now whether this is the person actually running the NIL collective and website is still in question. What I worry about is that this person (or a completely different person who has nothing to do with the NIL collective) is now putting himself in an unenviable position to answer questions posed by others such as "bruinballer" has when he could avoid all of this by being transparent as Dimitri has so astutely argued in his post that only 4 active of the 136 NIL collectives in the On3 database do not list a founder with MOW being one of them. So why fight the absolute norm and gain the trust of all Bruins around the world who may want to donate to the MOW? Why the secrecy? It just creates more questions about "who and what are you doing with my money" when it doesn't need to by being transparent.
Additionally, after discussing this with a few of my friends who are friendly BRO members, they gave me info of BRO posts on this matter that say things like "Plenty of blame...but no solution. ...if ...Dimitri understand NIL is what it takes to compete with top players...then propose an alternative" which seems to be the general tone of most BRO members. Excuse me? I think Dimitri is the voice of reason here and without his piece, the general public (and other school boards) which are already making fun of MOW and its non-transparent operation, the BRO narrative will continue and further create a negative image of UCLA athletics and its NIL efforts which are then being told to potential recruits. Because of Dimitri's post and some comments I made (understandably a bit harsh but not sorry for) they did correct their website by adding a Privacy Policy which I commend and is a start of some corrections they need to make.
So let's keep pushing and try to get MOW to be transparent and then we might just be all on board and creating something that will actually be effective in getting the best athletes for basketball and football. There is a good portion of the literally hundreds of thousands of UCLA alumni such as myself that are more than willing to help out if the NIL collective is being transparent and I know exactly how my money is going to help. For example, I contributed to the UCLA Centennial Campaign which collected nearly $5.5 Billion dollars from 220,000 donors who gave 574,000 gifts. Did you know that 81% of those were under $1,000 and 95% under $10,000? Those numbers right there is one part of the transparency needed to get people on board and until the MOW realizes this, they shouldn't be reaching out outside of BRO (which I also heard is a suggestion made by the top BRO operator himself) then complaining that Dimitri's post has "no solutions."
To BRO members reading this: You are free to copy and paste my posts to the BRO board although I know it will take some guts to do so. But wouldn't it be worth it to have some other viewpoints expressed by the outside world and then convince MOW so that it can have several thousand more people donate to the MOW since so many of us are asking for the transparency and that's all we want? Why hide this information when 95%+ of the NIL collectives listed on On3 are being transparent?
Actually, went to the website and in two minutes had my info. I do this for a living (legal profession), so didn't need to google it :-)