Chaos to Clarity: NIL Agreements to Protect Schools and Athletes
- Cedric Hopkins
- Feb 3
- 3 min read
With the advent of unregulated NIL payments to student-athletes, the NCAA transfer portal has become a broken system. College-athletes are leveraging the portal as a free agency bargaining tool, which circumvents its objective.
A caveat: Those student-athletes who are not receiving any NIL funds should use the portal to seek out a school that’s the best fit for them. If the portal was around when I played, I absolutely would’ve transferred; my college experience, like many others, was tumultuous due to horrific coaches. But once a college athlete accepts NIL money to play for a school, the portal should no longer be an option.
The stipulated settlement in House v. NCAA (“House Settlement”) allows each Power 5 school to pay a total of $23.1 million to their student-athletes. Universities can enter into agreements with student-athletes and pay those athletes directly.
When they enter into those agreements, schools can create duration and stability incentives: the NIL agreements can extend over multiple years and can be contingent upon the athlete remaining enrolled at the institution. There can be escalating clauses where the athlete earns more each year with a contract for two to four years. During that time, the agreement would restrict the athlete from entering the portal.
The NIL deals with the school could also include performance-based incentives tied to athletic and academic achievements. Such clauses would reward commitment and discourage opportunistic transfers that are currently plaguing college sports.
If the portal does remain an option under these contracts, universities could include buyout clauses. If an athlete leaves a school, they are obligated to pay the school a predetermined amount or percentage of their initial contract value. That buyout fee is usually higher than the player's market value.
These multi-year deals could provide more stability and financial predictability for the athletes, making it less appealing to transfer for potentially better, but uncertain yearly offers.
University NIL contracts will also protect student-athletes from empty promises currently being made by schools or coaches. This issue first came to light when Matthew Sluka, a starting quarterback for the UNLV football team, left the program after three games in September 2024. Sluka alleged the school failed to make good on a $100,000 NIL deal they promised. Neither the school, NIL collective, nor Sluka reduced the terms to a contract, making it nearly impossible to enforce. Sluka decided to redshirt this year and transfer to another school next season.
More recently, six former Florida State University basketball players sued their coach, Leonard Hamilton. They alleged Hamilton promised each of them $250,000 in NIL compensation. The complaint was based on text-messages between players and text messages between players and Hamilton. Had the players insisted on a written NIL agreement, the terms would have been clear and enforceable, making their claims more credible.
Their lawsuit is just the beginning of NIL legal fights to come.
Former University of Florida quarterback signee Jaden Rashada, now playing at the University of Georgia, sued Gators coach Billy Napier last year over an unpaid $13 million NIL deal. And several University of Tulsa players claim they were never paid thousands in NIL commitments made by former coach Kevin Wilson. Entering into contracts for NIL payments would protect the athletes, as well as the universities from potential lawsuits.
Under-the-table incentives or benefits have been happening in college sports for a long time; that’s what may have drawn a particular player to a school. For most others, it was a life-long goal to play for their dream school. That’s mostly over. Now, it’s about getting paid. But now that paying players is legal and out in the open, it’s time to bring structure to it. School spirit isn’t keeping a player at a particular school anymore, but the right contract will.
