"Restricts" Is a Contract Word That Means Nothing Until You Define the Exceptions

Here's where I stop reading and start circling. "Restricts institutional interference in athlete compensation" — that's not a protection, that's a placeholder. Every bad contract I've ever seen uses the word "restricts" when the drafter doesn't want to say "prohibits." Restricts how? Restricts to what degree? Restricts with what enforcement mechanism and what remedy when the school crosses the line anyway? Schools have compliance offices, general counsel, and a century of practice steering athlete decisions. You think a vague "restriction" stops a coach from telling a recruit the program "prefers" certain agents? That's interference. Will this bill reach it? Based on this language, I genuinely cannot tell you. The NCAA's entire enforcement history is a masterclass in finding the gap between what a rule says and what it means. "Restricts" is a gap you can drive a bus through. This bill also lists no definitions section in the major provisions — which means every term, including "interference" and "compensation," is either borrowed from existing law or left to be litigated later. So here's the question: Who defines the line between permissible institutional guidance and prohibited interference — and what happens to the athlete when the school crosses it?