This past week, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNVL) quarterback Matthew Sluka announced that he would be stepping away from the team after three games due to an NIL (name, image and likeness) dispute. This unprecedented decision sent a shock through the college football world and raised concerns about how issues surrounding NIL may disrupt the sport. As NIL deals become more common and more lucrative in Division I football, there has to be better legislation guiding these agreements between players and institutions. College football is changing fast, and it could be in real danger.

NIL refers to college athletes making money through endorsement deals, social media and other personal business ventures. This became legal across the NCAA in 2021 when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the NCAA’s appeal of its antitrust lawsuit. Since then, it has been the Wild West, with the NCAA working to draft NIL guidance and regulation at the same time that athletes and institutions are cashing in on the NIL gold rush.

NCAA athletes playing for free has always been a feature of the product. For many fans, amateurism was an endearing aspect, suggesting that young athletes are playing for pride, the love of the game and the honor of their institution. College football is like a religion in many parts of the United States, and the diehard fans who pledge their undying support to their team take respite in the illusion that the players on the field might just be doing it for them. In reality, this is not the case. Sure, school pride does still exist in college athletics, but it is far from the primary source of motivation.

Every year, the best players in college football unenroll from their institution to enter the NFL draft, where they are met with multi-million dollar contracts. The 32 first-round picks in the 2024 NFL draft signed contracts for a combined $640 million. It goes without saying that most eligible players are not concerned about their school’s degree, the alumni network or the marching band. They want to go to the NFL. The issue is that most do not. Of all the players in Division I college football, only 1.6% make it. NIL provides an opportunity for everyone else to earn their fair share.

College football is a business, and a very lucrative one at that. Student-athletes generating money for their school should not have to play for free. The decision to allow athletes to profit off their name, image and likeness is without a doubt the right one. However, the NCAA’s current inability to effectively monitor agreements between athletes and institutions is leaving athletes vulnerable.

In Sluka’s case, his agent claimed that he was promised $100,000 in a verbal agreement that motivated his decision to transfer from Holy Cross to UNLV last winter. Despite the team’s hot start, winning their first three games with Sluka under center, the quarterback decided that he would be better off utilizing the rest of his eligibility next season, with a new team. Sluka’s situation stirred up emotion on both sides of the debate. Some called Sluka a quitter, condemning him for abandoning his teammates and coaches. Others claimed that this is unacceptable behavior from UNLV and that it is the perfect example of how not to navigate the NIL landscape. I believe that Sluka’s case is just the beginning of troubling and complicated NIL disputes in college football.

The big NIL agreements have many of the same characteristics as deals in professional sports, just without the guarantees. If the NCAA cannot find a way to clean things up, college football will become unrecognizable. Agreements will be violated, athletes will opt-out or transfer and the institutions will continue making millions while the student athletes continue to lose out. At the same time, fans will lose the attachment they have to their favorite team as the roster is reshuffled by transfers year after year.

In addition to the NIL frenzy, the NCAA has had major conference realignments, with schools all across the country joining new conferences to maximize profit. College football is the driving force behind these moves, with West Coast schools like University of Oregon and UCLA leaving the Pac-12 to join the more competitive Big Ten. Conference realignment marks a shift in priorities for college football programs, valuing business and national exposure over tradition. With conferences like the Pac-12 left barren, it is clear to see a future of college football dominated by the SEC and the Big Ten, much like the two-conference system in the NFL.

I do not think that the introduction of NIL into college sports has ruined college football — at least not yet. NIL can and should be a useful tool for collegiate athletes to earn money from their hard work and ability. With that being said, the current framework lends itself to negative consequences that could reshape the college football landscape. From damage to tradition and team cohesion to lack of legal protection in verbal and written agreements, NIL is a threat to college football.

The problems are not crystal clear, and neither are the solutions. Regardless, it is clear that there has to be a better model for college athletes to navigate NIL deals. This starts with strong leadership and a clear direction for the organization. I have hope that NIL will be a positive force moving forward, but this will require institutional change.