Matt Sluka, a relatively unknown quarterback at UNLV, made headlines recently for one of two reasons.

The first account comes from Sluka himself, stating that an assistant coach at UNLV promised him a $100,000 payment for his name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights after he transferred from Holy Cross; however, this payment never came through once he arrived at the university.

The alternative narrative, popular among UNLV supporters, claims that Sluka asked for a higher payment after being named the starting quarterback for a currently undefeated team that has playoff potential.

In this chaotic era of NIL, either story is conceivable, as we’ve seen similar situations unfold at various universities. The difference is that Sluka’s situation gained attention when he announced his departure from the team, opting to keep his eligibility for the rest of the year as a redshirt.

This peculiar situation has ignited discussions about NIL in the last few years. Problems like the lack of regulation surrounding NIL, dishonest agents seeking easy profits, the essential rights of student-athletes, and the fragile dynamics of team finances all come into play. Depending on your perspective regarding athlete compensation—and without clear evidence about the specifics of this incident—one can interpret this event in multiple ways.

This incident should serve as a wake-up call for anyone refusing to recognize the need for treating college athletes as employees. Until educational institutions take on the responsibilities typical of employers—just like every other billion-dollar sports league—challenges in creating stable rosters will continue, leading to turmoil and situations that undermine the seriousness of college sports.

Some may argue that these kinds of issues are merely part of the growing pains of college sports as it shifts from a time when paying for a player’s pizza was frowned upon to a culture where assistant coaches boast about paying athletes.

However, there is hardly any other industry in America where such unregulated capitalism exists as it does in college sports and NIL, where enforceable rules are virtually absent. And this leads to significant consequences.

While the current environment has benefited student-athletes, allowing them to explore the market for better deals, it has created significant issues for coaches and university officials, who face the challenge of nearly rebuilding their teams each year and navigating a landscape of misinformation about player values. Collectives, which are semi-independent booster groups, find themselves in an ongoing struggle to secure funding to support new recruits and transfers.

Did UNLV’s collective lack the funds to resolve this conflict? Did the university deliberately choose to address the implications of Sluka’s $100,000 request during the season? The truth may remain elusive.

UNLV has officially stated that Sluka made “financial demands … in order to continue playing,” which the school perceived as a violation of NCAA regulations.

The statement emphasized, “UNLV does not engage in such practices, nor does it respond to implied threats.”

In response, UNLV’s collective refuted any claims of a $100,000 offer, insisting that they have honored all contracts and financial obligations this season.

Regardless of who is telling the truth, the consequences for UNLV will be significant, leaving its football team and remaining players in a difficult position due to a teammate’s departure, while head coach Barry Odom must manage reputational issues within his staff.

Although it is challenging to gauge the frequency of such incidents previously, the coaching fraternity in football and men’s basketball has accumulated numerous anecdotes over the past three years—ranging from misunderstandings about offers to struggling collectives unable to meet financial obligations, and agents threatening to pull players from good situations due to payment disputes.

College sports may be flourishing with packed stadiums, rising television viewership, and increasing enthusiasm, despite its apparent chaos.

However, no business with such substantial stakes and financial figures should operate so chaotically and with minimal oversight of transactions that essentially act as salaries.

One significant obstacle to regulating the NIL landscape remains: any attempts by universities or the NCAA to control how collectives function are likely to face legal challenges and scrutiny for potential antitrust violations.

The settlement in the House v. NCAA case, which opens the door for schools to share revenue directly with athletes for the first time, has also Concerns raised by Judge Claudia Wilken from the Northern District of California regarding restrictions on NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) and collective activities have led to delays in proceedings.

The most effective solution to address this issue is to classify college athletes as employees, allowing for standardized rules to be established through collective bargaining, similar to what is done in professional sports.

University presidents and NCAA leaders have invested substantial sums—tens of millions—in legal costs and lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C., over recent years to prevent this classification of athletes. They appear willing to make numerous concessions to keep athletes from being recognized as employees.

However, as long as NIL collectives operate without clear rules, standards, oversight, or transparency regarding their dealings with players, disputes like the current one involving UNLV and Sluka will likely become more common and publicized during the season.

If educational institutions are comfortable with this unfolding scenario, they can continue on their present trajectory. If they wish to regain some control and establish order in athlete compensation, designating athletes as employees is essentially the only path forward.