January 09th, 2026

A recent Yahoo Sports report detailing LSU’s pursuit of transfer quarterback Brendan Sorsby reinforces long-standing concerns about the shortsighted and incompetent approach of the NCAA regarding the NIL and revenue-share ecosystem — and where it is headed.

At first glance, the numbers are eye-catching. Multi-million-dollar “marketing guarantees,” sophisticated deal structures, and the involvement of multimedia rights partners suggest a professionalized marketplace finally taking shape.

But beneath the surface, the system increasingly resembles a house of cards.

Unapproved Contracts and Unclear Authority

One of the most concerning realities is that many NIL and revenue-share agreements are being discussed, promised, and relied upon before approval by the College Sports Commission’s NIL Go clearinghouse.

The NCAA created the College Sports Commission for the stated purpose of ensuring that compensation aligns with legitimate services provided and falls within acceptable market rates. In practice, this framework appears more likely to generate lawsuits than stability — though that analysis is better suited for an entirely separate dissertation.

When deals move faster than oversight, the risk is obvious. If contracts fail to meet Commission standards, schools and athletes could face eligibility issues, enforcement actions, or litigation — outcomes that were entirely predictable when the regulatory framework was created.

Compensation Detached From Services

Another structural flaw is valuation.

Reported NIL figures often appear to significantly exceed what the Commission has indicated are reasonable rates for actual marketing, promotional, or endorsement services.

When compensation becomes untethered from verifiable value, scrutiny is inevitable. And when oversight exists but is bypassed or delayed, enforcement is no longer theoretical — it becomes a matter of timing.

Athletes, meanwhile, are left exposed to risks they did not create and cannot control.

The Multimedia Rights Assumption

Perhaps the most under-examined issue is revenue sustainability.

Many NIL packages are now routed through multimedia rights partners or future-facing revenue models. The assumption is that these entities will generate sufficient incremental income to fund massive guarantees.
But what happens if they don’t?

If projected revenues fall short, history suggests the financial risk will not be absorbed by institutions. Instead, it will fall on athletes through reduced payments, clawbacks, or contract disputes.

A System Built on Assumptions

What emerges is a model built on shaky assumptions:

• Contracts will be approved after the fact
• Compensation levels will withstand scrutiny
• Future media revenues will cover present obligations
• Enforcement will remain selective

That is not a stable foundation.

It is a house of cards.

If college sports is truly moving toward a professionalized model, it must also embrace professional standards: pre-approved contracts, transparent valuation, standardized terms, and real representation for athletes before commitments are made — not after.
 
Until then, both athletes and institutions remain exposed in a system racing ahead of its own rules.
















​

Categories and Tags:
College Athletics
Student-Athlete Rights
CSC
College Sports Commission
Athlete Advocacy
Due Process
Fair Play
NIL
College Athletic Recruiting
College Recruiting Advisors
recruiting  experts
sports recruiting
Damon Wilson NIL lawsuit
college athlete contracts
NIL contract protections
liquidated damages NIL
NIL transfer penalties
Georgia football NIL
athlete representation recruiting
standardized athlete contracts
NIL injury clauses
college football recruiting advice
athlete contract negotiation
unfair NIL contracts
college sports hypocrisy
coaching carousel movement
RecruitU athlete advisory
NIL collectives contract terms
Power 4 NIL rules
college transfer penalties
lower-tier conference NIL deals