They probably won?t for privacy reasons, but knowing the name of the assistant coach who made the promise of 100K would be key and hearing his side.
Because if true then I 100% side with Sluka. No one should work if they aren?t given the pay and/or benefits that were promised.
As for the bigger issue about the NIL agreements and legal matters, that?s on the NCAA. But the assistant coach is still part of the team in a paid official role and represents the organization so if he told Sluka that even in a verbal agreement then I can see why Sluka made his decision
Being part of an organization doesn't mean you can make financial commitments for an organization. Only certain employees are given responsibilities to do so. No school is going to allow an assistant coach to make such a commitment. For many reasons including that pay for play is not allowed.
But ignoring that where's the proof? Text message? Email? Are we supposed to believe that Sluka and his representatives just accepted an assistant coaches' verbal statement with getting any other assurances. NIL isn't supposed to be pay for play. Schools and coaches are NOT supposed to be directly involved in NIL deals. That's what collectives are for. So where's the proof of interaction with the UNLV collective on this 100k deal? If there is proof, where's the lawsuit?
UNLV got a late offer to cover the 100k but turned it down.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10136985-circa-sports-exec-wanted-to-offer-matthew-sluka-100k-nil-deal-to-prevent-unlv-exitUNLV's statement.
"UNLV Athletics interpreted these demands as a violation of the NCAA pay-for-play rules, as well as Nevada state law. UNLV does not engage in such activity, nor does it respond to implied threats. UNLV has honored all previously agreed-upon scholarships for Matthew Sluka. UNLV has conducted its due diligence and will continue to operate its programs within the framework of NCAA rules and regulations, as well as Nevada state laws."
Topic: 2024-25 College Football Season (Read 138345 times)