UNLV QB Sluka's NIL situation shows how broken college football is | News, scores, highlights, stats and rumors

It was only a matter of time before we reached this point. A disgruntled quarterback claimed he never paid the money he was promised months ago. A university – or a “collective” or whatever we call the organizations that funnel money to student athletes these days – claimed said quarterback had issued an ultimatum to keep playing.

In a business or normal environment with appropriate checks and balances, such matters would be handled with care. Or they might go to court. In any case, a process would be followed with appropriate guardrails and reasonable expectations.

There are no such guardrails in college football, nor is there really a person or governing body capable of implementing them.

Wondering how UNLV got so much attention in the CFB just days before Alabama and Georgia face off in one of the biggest regular season games in recent history? Because no one did anything about it and the outcome ultimately ended in chaos.

Here is what we know, although it cannot be stressed enough how little this actually is.

Matthew Sluka transferred to UNLV last season after four seasons at Holy Cross. He had a handful of flashes at the FCS level, including rushing for 330 yards in a single game.

Since arriving at UNLV, Sulka has led the Rebels to a 3-0 start, throwing for 318 yards and rushing for 253 yards in three games, as UNLV has developed into a potential College Football Playoff contender.

This is now a fact. We know that Sulka announced his intention to wear a redshirt the rest of the season, citing obligations – also known as financial guarantees – that were not met. Sluka's NIL agent Marcus Cromartie added further information, saying ESPN that Sulka was verbally guaranteed a minimum of $100,000 by a member of the coaching staff.

In response to the allegations, UNLV has explained its side of the story, saying that Sulka's representation “made financial demands on the university and its NIL collective to enable continued operations.”

It should be noted that following Sulka's announcement, another UNLV player, running back Michael Allen, also announced his intention to redshirt as well. Allen transferred to NC State after two seasons and explained his decision to leave the school by saying that “unfortunately, his expectations of opportunities were not met.”

The truth behind this frantic movement is important. Given the current state of these discussions, it's hard to imagine we'll ever know exactly what was and wasn't said. The fact that another player has come forward is certainly significant, but that doesn't mean the book should be closed just yet.

If anything, what has gained such momentum at UNLV will likely become an issue at other college football programs. This is far from the only place where compensation is a sensitive issue. The fact that this announcement has garnered so much attention will likely prompt others to speak out.

And let's not forget the timing, either. Current NCAA rules allow players to play up to four games before they must redshirt to maintain their eligibility for a given season. As Week 5 begins, that situation will almost certainly arise in other places as well.

And none of this should be surprising. Sulka's stance and UNLV's counterargument are not the product of a single player or a single situation. This moment has been building for decades. More recently, and this part cannot be emphasized enough, it is the result of a lack of leadership and oversight that the schools and conferences have experienced.

Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) came into being after the courts declared it was legal and possible. From then on, it was up to sponsors, clubs, players and schools (in no particular order) to make it happen.

Leaving these decisions to these parties who want to win or make money has always been challenging. It was never a good idea from the beginning, although we clearly stumbled upon it.

From the moment NIL became a reality, we wondered when this arrangement of handshakes and verbal agreements would be dissolved. For decades, this was the way schools operated. Players were paid under the table, although these agreements and disagreements never made it to social media or the public. These agreements eventually broke arbitrary rules, leading to much quieter discussions outside of the public eye.

Now that NIL is legal and widely accepted, the furore created by these unusual, busted deals is being laid bare for the world to process. The lack of documentation offers little to go on – other than the words of PR firms, NIL agencies and social media accounts trying to shape their stance as they wish.

And it's not their fault. It's the fault of the NCAA, which avoided this very issue for far too long. It's the fault of the schools and the conferences that chose to deal with it when they were forced to. It's the fault of a broken system that hasn't been fixed, but broken in new and exciting ways. That's what happens when a complicated issue suffers from a lack of leadership and guidance.

Would making college athletes actual employees solve the problem? Will many of these problems suddenly disappear when schools start paying their players directly – which is planned for next year? Will these very public, very stressful situations somehow lead to a better process for documentation and accountability?

The answer to all these questions cannot be disputed, even if the weak structures of college football combined with the injection of money and the ever-increasing pressure to win have created a delicate mix.

Will this suddenly improve? Absolutely not. In fact, the sport is more fragmented than ever, with revamped conferences and revamped postseasons and the endless money-making by all involved.

The higher the stakes, the more opaque the rules. The number of parties involved has increased. Things are now open, although college football still behaves like it used to, when none of this was fair game and a handshake was all it took.