Chris Wilford

Associate Editor

Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2026

Matthew Sluka, starting quarterback for the then-undefeated University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) football team, elected to use his redshirt designation and sit out for the rest of the 2024-25 football season, claiming that he was not paid the entirety of the $100,000 NIL deal he was recruited on. Sluka is now the first player to sit out in-season because of NIL disputes. However, it is very likely he will not be the last. Sluka claims that he was promised the $100,000 by the offensive coordinator. The school and team dispute the claims by Sluka, saying they had never promised him any money and the $3,000 he had received was for honoring a separate NIL engagement that summer. UNLV is claiming that Sluka and his representation’s financial demands to keep playing are against NCAA rules and Nevada state law. NCAA rules and Nevada law stipulate that a player cannot receive NIL just to play for or attend a school, there must be quid pro quo, (sign autographs, meet and greets, etc.) in order to profit from their name, image or likeness. Regardless of the underlying truth, Sluka’s situation has highlighted exactly why the NCAA cannot regulate NIL anymore.

NCAA creates a problem rather than solves one

The NCAA rules about NIL defer to state law regarding if and how athletes are allowed to monetize themselves. The few things schools cannot do are directly pay a player for their performance, promise money, or carry out NIL deals for an athlete’s commitment or enrollment. These rules are highly contested as the NCAA claims certain state laws violate NCAA rules and some state’s attorneys have sued the NCAA claiming the NCAA violates antitrust laws when its rules barred universities from recruiting with NIL.

This made for an extremely gray regulatory environment that was going to necessitate a Matthew Sluka situation. Because the NCAA deferred to states almost entirely rather than attempting to implement a uniform system or ask Congress for help, there is no consistent law for athletes to look to when seeking recruitment. Furthermore, although it is against NCAA rules to directly pay for players to come to their school or promise NIL deals for their commitment, we have two cases, Rashada and Sluka, in which players are already claiming that is exactly what happened and those are only the two who decided to speak out about it.

How can Sluka just leave in the middle of the season?

Two rules enable Sluka (or any football player) to leave like this. The first is an eligibility rule that was changed in 2018. The second is the rule barring direct pay for play. In college football, the NCAA historically allowed players to have five years of school to “use” four years of eligibility, and to not use one of those years, a player received a redshirt designation. However, if an athlete played in a single snap of any game, they used a year of eligibility. The eligibility requirements for redshirting changed in 2018 to give coaches more time to evaluate their teams in game. Currently, this rule is being considered for expansion to every sport. Sluka’s redshirt decision was not the intended use of the rule, but due to the NCAA’s lack of foresight he was able to use it, nonetheless. Because NIL is explicitly not pay-for-play, NIL deals can’t have any terms for performance or participation with the team which enables Sluka to leave, even if there was a bona fide NIL agreement in place.

Sluka’s agreement was verbal

It is not clear who is at fault in the dispute between Sluka and UNLV. Even if one is always on the side of the athlete in these disputes, Sluka has an agent representing him, who did not secure a written deal. This appears negligent of Sluka’s agent, if the promises by UNLV were made. The end result of Sluka’s case does not matter as much as the issues it highlights: who is exactly responsible for meeting NIL commitments; is it possible to enforce uneven state laws regarding NIL especially as those states are suing the NCAA to not enforce them; is the NCAA capable of enforcing its regulations, let alone the varying state regulations; and are players who were promised pay for play deals allowed to attempt to enforce those contracts. All of these issues can only be solved by Congress.

Congress needs to finally step in

The disputes on using NIL as recruiting enticements between the NCAA and states are the quintessential reason why Congress needs to step in and create federal legislation. The rules the NCAA have in place currently put athletes in an untenable situation. Almost all of them will never play professional sports and if they want to monetize their skills, college is the one opportunity to do so. This forces athletes to try to maximize their earning potential in a handful of years, if not just one or two. Given that situation, Congress needs to recognize the reality that colleges are very much using NIL to recruit, that largely only athletes suffer the repercussions if the schools do not fulfill the recruitment deals, and the NCAA is helpless in solving this problem.