More recently, the saga of UNLV quarterback Matthew Sluka has driven home that while at first blush this NCAA Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) stuff looks simple, it’s nothing close to being simple. In this case, Sluka transferred to UNLV after a mostly successful four years at Holy Cross and left the team in September 2024 because of what he perceived as unfulfilled promises surrounding an NIL deal reportedly worth $100,000. His choice has sparked a national conversation on the topic of whether or not collegiate sports are fair and also given us a taste of what this ever-changing landscape but no less controversial world — of college football parlance for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals in is really like.
Sluka’s Road to UNLV
Before we get into the controversy, a bit of background on Matthew Sluka. A four-year starter at Holy Cross, Sluka utilized his impressive dual-threat ability to set the Crusaders’ program record for career rushing yards by a QB while also adding more than 6,000 passing yards and 69 total touchdowns, establishing himself as one of the best players in FCS football. Iowa State After moving up to a bigger program, there were lofty goals for the dual-threat quarterback. A neck and back specialist who had always dreamed of becoming a college football head coach, Sluka jumped at the opportunity and led UNLV to an unprecedented 3-0 start with victories over Power Five teams Kansas and Houston. In three games, he scored seven touchdowns and proved himself on the field.
Yet Sluka’s fast start at UNLV flamed out just as quickly; he played only three games. He stated he would redshirt and sit out the rest of the season on September 25, 2024, to save his final year. The reason? While Sluka and his representatives believe he was promised a six-figure NIL deal that was never delivered.
Promise NIL: The good faith?
At the center of the controversy is the NIL agreement Sluka was allegedly guaranteed during his recruitment to UNLV. Sluka would be offered a $100,000 NIL package to come play quarterback for the UNLV by a Coach with the Rebels according to Sluka’s father and NIL representative Marcus Cromartie. The package was set to include everything from cost-of-living allowances to other benefits.
But when Sluka got to UNLV, the NIL money did not come. Instead, Sluka was ‘only’ awarded $3,000 (which the trailer park simply called a relocation fee), as opposed to the complete $100,000. Sluka and his reps began asking questions to try to understand how the pay would work, at which point answers started getting more vague, and delays began slipping in — until eventually they were told the original verbal agreement was not going to be honored.
However, UNLV has since denied that this is the case via its NIL collective operated by Blueprint Sports. The group’s CEO Rob Sine: “Everything we do is contracted — we don’t do anything verbally.” The collective will claim that there never was an agreement for Sluka to receive $100,000 and that his agents may have been mistaken or dissembling (or both).
Sluka’s Decision to Sit Out
Fed up after two years of unmet promises, Sluka felt he had no choice and chose to redshirt the rest of the season. The redshirt will save him a season of eligibility but bring his UNLV career to an end — at least when it comes to playing for the Rebels in 2024. The resolution has elicited both empathy and doubt from the common public.
Some believed Sluka may have been impacted or tampered with by another program, suggesting that his choice to leave UNLV could be due to a higher NIL offer elsewhere. But Sluka’s family has strongly denied any bad motives for his choice, saying it was because of a commitment to fairness and openness.
His father said money is not the family’s main objective, but he feels that it is about justice. “We’re a hardworking family. Never mind that we did not much care for the cash anyway. But there is a principle to it, “Bob Sluka said in an interview The family has told Outside the Lines they do not believe Matthew’s case is isolated, but indicative of a larger problem in college sports: undelivered NIL pledges.
What This Means For NIL In College Sports
The Sluka saga is only the most recent in a string of opportunities and pitfalls presented by the new world of name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals. Ever since the NCAA allowed athletes to profit off of their name, image, and likeness in July 2021 — making one of those silly interim rules permanent — it has been madness with few limitations or guidelines. NIL deals have proved game-changing for some athletes, but others like Sluka are in a classic story of too-good-to-be-true promises and handshake deals that evaporate into nothing.
The absence of clear-cut processes and contracts surrounding numerous NIL deals still leaves plenty of room for miscommunication, or even direct exploitation in the worst cases. The case of Sluka, whose reported verbal deal went unfulfilled, demonstrates the necessity for more streamlined rules and greater transparency when it comes to how NIL deals are both pursued and ultimately handled.
Defenders, however, have contended the controversy is raising awareness about how NIL collective groups of boosters and businesses and alums band together to pool resources that can be used to fund NIL deals. The UNLV NIL collective has denied wrongdoing in the Sluka case but the present lack of transparency over how these collectives function serves to deepen concerns around their role within college sports and just what constitutes fairness and equity.
What It Means For Sluka And NIL Regulations Going Forward
And Matthew Sluka, for now, is still in limbo. He still has one more year before his eligibility is officially started, however, and that means he can depart as a transfer in 2025 if he chooses to. So, given his talent level and history, it is likely that another school will come calling — perhaps even with a hands-on NIL offer.
More broadly, the NCAA and its conferences might have to intervene as a watchdog on NIL deals to keep future Slukas at bay. It is simply that the current system, dominated by verbal declarations and unwritten rules all too often only relying on trust and honor, leaves room for interpretation and sometimes even a cover-up.
The Sluka imbroglio sparked a broader discussion about transparency, accountability, and oversight in the new NIL space that is changing faster than healthcare legislation. While the current pay-for-play landscape of NCAA sports seems to benefit some schools and athletes, a deeper analysis reveals a still immensely complex industry that looks to be reaching an all-time high as competition among marketers continues to grow, as well.
Conclusion
The Matthew Sluka $100K NIL fight underscores just how complicated and messy the new world of athletes being paid for their name, image, and likeness can be. NIL rights are certainly an improvement for college athletes when compared to the ages before their introduction, but players like Sluka underscore an ongoing lack of regulation and compliance. The NIL landscape will continue to grow as time goes on and the NCAA, among others, has much room for improvement when protecting athletes and preserving the sanctity of college sports.
