Matthew Sluka NIL dispute is another sign of college sports’ broken system

It’s normal to want to find a villain after UNLV quarterback Matthew Sluka effectively opted out of the 3-0 Rebels’ season.

Sluka announced late Tuesday that he transferred to UNLV from Holy Cross “based on certain representations that were made to me, which were not upheld after I enrolled.” It became obvious, he added, “these commitments would not be fulfilled in the future.” And if those commitments would not be fulfilled, he will not be playing for a team that’s in the mix to earn a playoff spot as the top mid-major conference champion.

Whatever happened — or didn’t happen — created an unfortunate situation for everyone. There’s probably plenty of blame to go around.

Start here: The system has failed, again.

If we ignore the details and focus on the big picture, it shouldn’t be a surprise that college football has an issue like this (or the Florida-Jaden Rashada dispute). The surprise is that more of these cases haven’t blown up publicly.

“I can tell you that I don’t think it’ll be the last,” Georgia coach Kirby Smart said during Wednesday’s weekly SEC coaches’ call.

That’s because College Sports Inc. outsourced player compensation — first to boosters and bagmen who made under-the-table deals, then to third parties through name, image and likeness (NIL) collectives that pay athletes above board. It’s a great model for the athletic departments that don’t have to direct-deposit money to running backs or point guards every other Friday. Not great for everyone else.

Collectives are start-up companies in a nascent industry. That, inherently, is a risky endeavor. Now factor in umbrella companies, young adults (who generally don’t have much business experience yet), agents (who may or may not be qualified themselves) and other interested parties (from coaches to administrators to financial backers), and the risks spike.

Here’s a plausible, generic scenario, based on reporting from ESPN, The Athletic and Yahoo: An agent helped negotiate a deal for a player through an assistant that would be paid by a collective that’s operated by a bigger firm. Consider all the unnecessary layers.

Or schools could have just been paying players directly.

There would be problems in that model, of course. No business is foolproof. Contract disputes happen between schools and coaches. One between former Florida State assistant Greg Frey and the Seminoles ended up in the courts, to say nothing of the ongoing lawsuits between schools and their conference (FSU/Clemson and the ACC), and between leagues (the Pac-12 and Mountain West). Professionals hold out for better contract situations, too.

But which party would you trust more in a business deal: a major university that’s been around for decades and has a massive budget with at least some financial transparency? Or a small enterprise with a smaller staff and harder-to-check financial backing? The first one would be more efficient and reliable. Naturally, college sports’ powerbrokers chose the second.

“The NIL, because it becomes a third-party piece, you lose control,” LSU coach Brian Kelly said. “That’s why the revenue-sharing piece is so important and getting that legislation passed now puts that back through the universities.”

The revenue-sharing piece will start as soon as the 2025-26 academic year. Schools will be able to give money directly to players without middlemen. If schools negotiate with players, they’ll be able to do so directly without relying on someone else to fund the payments. Name, image and likeness deals or collectives could still have a role in the future system, but more as a side dish than the main course.

The new model, whenever it arrives, will have its own issues, starting with figuring out contracts and collective bargaining.

But if you shudder at the thought of schools paying players as soon as next football season, ask yourself this: Is that scenario any worse than the current one?