Listening to College Gameday this morning, one of the greatest television programs ever created, and heard the panel discussing a wide range of NIL topics. A great opportunity to respond to some elements of the discussion.

The current event which prompted the discussion was the UNLV quarterback who quit his team this week. The background was an alleged verbal promise of $100,000 of “NIL” funds by a booster to sign and play with UNLV that was never paid. Clearly there are issues with this scenario which don’t benefit the player, UNLV, the sport of college football or even the boosters or the school. The talking heads have been conditioned in recent years to say that they support athletes receiving funds (with or without sincerity), but they recognize that core issues in the structure of the sport remain. I generally think these media members, including former coaches and other important representatives of the sport don’t do a good job articulating the problems or the solutions.

One of the suggestions Coach Saban mentionend on Gameday today was that there should be national legislation on NIL, rather than a patchwork of laws between states. He also mentioned that some protection from liability is necessary, presumably to shield the NCAA and schools from player lawsuits. Coach Saban is clearly an important voice and I believe his efforts are well intended, but I believe these ideas are misguided. These ideas were also shared by the most recent NCAA commissioner, Mark Emmert. I don’t believe there is currently the political will to push such legislation through and I don’t believe the courts will support such a shield from liability. Mr. Emmert put a lot of eggs in the basket of federal legislation and lost his job when these efforts never took hold.

There is clearly a need for a framework of rules and guidelines that are well understood, enforceable and benefit the players (all three of these concepts the NCAA has never understood), the universities and sports teams, coaches, and not least, the booster and the fans which enjoy and support the sport. The framework needs to apply to all of the schools which want to complete at this level, however, it may not need to include all universities which sponsor a football team. I would like to propose a better way forward, and perhaps the only way forward that makes sense.

Kirk Herbstreit, a former player and College GameDay host, resurfaced the idea of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). He also astutely pointed out that in order to reach a CBA, someone has to organize the players and organize a group of major college football conference commissioners (SEC, Big 10, etc.). A CBA is the most effective way to deal with the challenges of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the courts enforcement of the Act. The organization of the players may likely require the universities to hire the college players as employees and someone to provide the necessary leadership to organize the players. The organization of the conference commissions is slowly getting easier due to the consolidation of conferences and major sports teams, but more work is necessary. In the end, I believe the universities and their conferences will have to step forward and recognize that hiring the players as employees and encouraging them to unionize is in their best interest and in the best interest for all constituents. Until they recognize this, chaos will reign.

Coach Saban correctly points out the actions of the UNLV quarterback likely do not ultimately benefit the player, but who can blame the player for looking out for himself. Blame the booster for not following through on the alleged offer – blame the player for not getting the offer in writing and blame the sport for not providing a framework where everyone can win together. Ultimately I believe the lack of leadership of the university presidents is the primary issue.

Even if we can get to a CBA, which is the right way forward and will help tremendously, I believe significant issues remain: enforcement of booster activity and Title 9 among others.