Jayden Daniels has sent a cease-and-desist letter to LSU, demanding the school stop using his name, image and likeness — and the dispute raises questions that go far beyond one former Heisman Trophy winner.

This week on uNILateral Decisions, the crew breaks down where the line exists between celebrating a former athlete’s legacy and commercially using their NIL. What rights should schools have to historical photos, highlights and facility branding? What happens when those highlights are attached to sponsors? And could former athletes begin challenging how schools, conferences and broadcasters continue to use their likeness years after they leave campus?

The group also digs into the other piece of the Daniels-LSU dispute: No. 5. Should Daniels’ number have been taken out of circulation? Could jersey-number protections eventually become part of player contracts? And how many numbers can a football program realistically retire?

Plus, Mike explains how NIL licensing timelines already work in the trading card industry, Sam examines the right-of-publicity questions behind these disputes, and Joe and Dom look at what athletic departments should be doing now to protect themselves.

Topics include:

• Jayden Daniels’ cease-and-desist letter to LSU
• LSU giving No. 5 to another player
• NIL rights after an athlete leaves school
• Editorial use vs. commercial use of former athletes
• Historical highlights and broadcast NIL
• Sponsored content featuring former players
• Retired jerseys vs. retired numbers
• How schools should handle legacy athletes
• Why NIL agreements may need to address these rights moving forward

A 6-Star Episode — because 5 was taken.
:::

This week on uNILateral Decisions, Mike Walsh, Joe Nickell, and Sam Ehrlich break down the nationwide legal turmoil surrounding the NCAA’s new five‑for‑five eligibility rule—and why the class of 2022 has suddenly become the center of the biggest eligibility fight in college sports.

The conversation digs into how we got here, why courts across the country keep siding with athletes, and how the Colorado class‑action injunction has thrown every compliance office in America into scramble mode. The hosts unpack what the rule was supposed to fix, why it’s now colliding with transfer‑portal restrictions, and how the NCAA’s emergency appeals could reshape the fall sports landscape overnight.

They also examine the practical fallout for coaches and administrators: roster limits, scholarship caps, athletes returning after months away from training, and the looming possibility of new lawsuits if schools can’t accommodate newly eligible players.

And yes—they get into Charlie Baker’s “failed professionals” comment, what he was really trying to signal, and why it matters for Congress, public perception, and the NCAA’s long‑term strategy.

The episode wraps up with another round of uNILateral Decisions, as each host weighs in on what should happen next—and what it would take for the NCAA, conferences, and courts to finally land on a stable eligibility model.

Topics include:

The NCAA’s shift toward eliminating redshirts and simplifying eligibility

Why the class of 2022 is suing—and why judges keep granting injunctions

The Colorado ruling’s national impact after class certification

Confusion around transfer‑portal access vs. eligibility access

How roster limits and scholarship caps complicate fall‑sport planning

The NCAA’s emergency appeals strategy and the 10th Circuit timeline

Charlie Baker’s “failed professionals” remark and its political implications

Whether courts could force roster expansion or further rule changes

The growing tension between judicial authority and NCAA governance

Mike, Joe, and Sam’s uNILateral Decisions on the future of eligibility and athlete rights

Subscribe for weekly conversations on NIL, athlete compensation, eligibility, governance, antitrust issues, and the rapidly changing business of college sports.

This week on uNILateral Decisions, Mike Walsh, Joe Nickell, and Sam Ehrlich unpack Stanford football’s announcement that its players intend to unionize and collectively bargain with the ACC. The conversation dives into what this moment really means, why it’s more complicated than it looks, and how it fits into the broader push toward employment status in college sports.

The hosts explore the legal hurdles ahead—including public‑employee restrictions across ACC states, the strategic decision to delay filing with the NLRB until the political landscape shifts, and the possibility of voluntary recognition becoming a flashpoint for conferences and the NCAA. They also examine why collective bargaining is increasingly viewed as the “endgame” by administrators across the country, even as federal legislation remains the preferred path for many power brokers.

The episode wraps up with another round of uNILateral Decisions, as each host weighs in on what they believe should happen next—and what it would take for college sports to finally reach a stable, sustainable model.

• Stanford football’s move toward unionization and support for the College Football Players Association
• Why 30% athlete support matters—and why conference‑wide action is the real threshold
• The ACC’s unique public/private membership challenge for collective bargaining
• How roster turnover and timing make union momentum fragile heading into fall camp
• The growing acceptance of athlete employment status among coaches and ADs
• Why conferences—not the NCAA—are the most logical bargaining units
• The legal and political barriers to creating a private employer model for college athletes
• Whether voluntary recognition could accelerate change—or trigger NCAA backlash
• Why federal legislation remains option A, and collective bargaining option B, for the Power Two
• Mike, Joe, and Sam’s uNILateral Decisions on the future of athlete labor rights

Subscribe for weekly conversations on NIL, athlete compensation, eligibility, governance, antitrust issues and the rapidly changing business of college sports.

The latest version of the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA) is already changing—and the biggest conferences are leading the charge.

This week on uNILateral Decisions, Mike Walsh, Joe Nickell, and Sam Ehrlich break down the proposed amendments, including a 19-school conference cap, new restrictions on conference movement, and the idea of a $20 million player retention pool on top of the House settlement revenue-sharing model.

The conversation explores what these changes really mean, whether they're designed to stop a super league or simply position the Big Ten to add Notre Dame, and why schools continue to overlook one of the most valuable assets they have: the ability to monetize athlete brands through licensing and merchandise.

The episode wraps up with another round of Unilateral Decisions, as each host picks the legislative proposal they would support—and explains why they believe it gives college athletics the best path forward.

Topics include:

• The Big Ten & SEC's proposed PCSA amendments
• Why conferences could be capped at 19 members
• Notre Dame's role in future conference realignment
• A proposed $20M player retention fund
• The missed opportunity in athlete licensing and jersey sales
• Why federal legislation still faces an uphill battle
• Mike, Joe, and Sam's Unilateral Decisions on the future of college sports legislation

Regional conferences may be disappearing, but should they? In this episode of uNILateral Decisions, Dominic Shelden, Sam Ehrlich, Joe Nickell, and Mike Walsh tackle one of the biggest structural questions facing college athletics: should football break away from the traditional conference model while Olympic sports return to regional competition?

The crew examines why football's television-driven business has fundamentally changed conference alignment, explores promotion-and-relegation concepts that could reshape the sport, and discusses whether non-football sports should be organized around geography instead of media revenue.

This episode also dives into the groundbreaking proposal authored by Mike Walsh in 2023 through Impact NIL. Long before many of today's reforms entered the national conversation, the proposal outlined a comprehensive vision for the future of college athletics—including regionalized Olympic sports, a restructured football model, athlete revenue sharing, modernized governance, and long-term sustainability. As the panel discusses, many of the concepts that once seemed ambitious are now becoming central to the sport's evolution. Read the full proposal here: https://www.impactnil.com/proposal

They also dive into the legal and financial realities driving these decisions, including the employee-status lawsuits facing the NCAA, the growing pressure to cut Olympic sports, the complicated role of Title IX, and whether pooling media rights could restore regional rivalries—or create an entirely new set of problems.

If college sports are headed for another major realignment, this conversation explores what the future could actually look like.

Topics include:

• Why football no longer fits the traditional conference model
• A promotion-and-relegation proposal for FBS football
• Returning Olympic sports to regional conferences
• The financial pressures facing athletic departments
• Employee-status litigation and its impact on college athletics
• Title IX challenges in the revenue-sharing era
• Whether pooled media rights could save regional rivalries

College sports is a topic of conversation with Congress again — but this time, the discussion wasn’t about transfer rules or eligibility; it was about stadium subsidies, tax‑exempt bonds, athlete taxation and the billionaire class reshaping the fan experience.

On this episode of uNILateral Decisions, Joe Nickell, Mike Walsh and Sam Ehrlich are joined by Jesse Dougherty, sports enterprise reporter at NOTUS and longtime Washington Post journalist, to break down a House Ways & Means Committee hearing that flew under the radar but could have implications for college athletics.

Jesse explains how the hearing — originally sparked by the Kansas City Chiefs’ stadium relocation — quickly expanded into a broader examination of tax‑exempt municipal bonds, public stadium financing and the rising cost of fandom across both professional and college sports. Members of Congress expressed bipartisan frustration with how billionaire owners leverage public money for private gain, while fans face higher ticket prices, more luxury seating and increasingly fragmented streaming experiences.

But the most surprising part of the hearing centered on college athletes and taxes. Witnesses highlighted how NIL earnings currently lack mandatory tax withholding, leaving 18‑ to 20‑year‑olds scrambling each spring to figure out what they owe — often with no institutional support. The panel discusses whether Congress might pursue narrow, athlete‑focused tax reform, including standardized withholding or financial‑literacy requirements, and why such targeted legislation may be more realistic than sweeping NCAA‑wide bills.

The conversation also explores how for‑profit athletic department models, private‑equity involvement and LLC‑style structures could eventually put pressure on universities’ tax‑exempt status — especially as stadiums become more commercialized and donor‑driven.

Finally, the hosts close with their weekly uNILateral decisions, offering one federal tax policy change they believe could help college athletics adapt to its rapidly evolving financial reality — from employee classification to mandatory withholding to preserving donor deductibility.

Topics include:

 •Stadium subsidies, tax‑exempt bonds, and public financing

 • NIL earnings and the lack of mandatory tax withholding

 • The rising cost of fandom and luxury‑driven stadium design

 • How billionaire ownership shapes both pro and college sports

 • The HUSTLE Act and other narrow tax‑policy proposals

 • For‑profit athletic department models and tax‑exempt scrutiny

 • Whether athlete employment is becoming unavoidable 

• What Congress might realistically tackle next

Subscribe for weekly conversations on NIL, athlete compensation, eligibility, governance, antitrust issues and the rapidly changing business of college sports.

The conversation around federal legislation in college sports is heating up, and this week we're joined by one of the industry's most respected voices to break it all down.

This week we're joined by Alex Kirshner, co-host of the Split Zone Duo podcast and one of the leading journalists covering the business of college athletics. His work has appeared in Slate, The Atlantic, The Ringer, FiveThirtyEight, The Guardian, and numerous other national publications. Alex joins the show to discuss the Protect College Sports Act, why it has gained momentum in Congress, and whether it has any realistic path to becoming law.

We examine the bill's biggest provisions, including athlete eligibility, medical protections, conference governance, collective bargaining, media rights, and restrictions on future conference realignment. Along the way, we debate whether college sports is moving toward a future controlled by individual conferences, why athlete representation remains the bill's biggest obstacle, and what changes would make the legislation more likely to succeed.

As always, we wrap up with our Unilateral Decisions, where each host proposes amendments that could improve the bill's chances while better serving the future of college athletics.

Topics include:
• The Protect College Sports Act (SCORE Act) explained
• Why Congress is paying attention to college athletics
• The future of athlete compensation and collective bargaining
• SEC and Big Ten governance
• Conference realignment and media rights
• Four- and five-year eligibility proposals
• Medical protections for athletes
• Our proposed amendments to the bill

Whether you follow college athletics as a fan, administrator, attorney, or industry professional, this episode provides an in-depth look at one of the most consequential pieces of legislation currently shaping the future of college sports.

On this episode of uNILateral Decisions, Joe Nickell, Mike Walsh and Sam Ehrlich break down a whirlwind week in college athletics. While headlines focused on the ongoing Sorsby saga and the rollout of the new five‑for‑five eligibility model, a major change quietly dropped in the middle of it all: the College Sports Commission (CSC) raised the NIL Go review threshold from $600 to $15,000, a dramatic shift that will redefine how third‑party NIL deals are evaluated.

But as the panel argues, the real story isn’t just the number — it’s what the change reveals about power, pressure and the future of governance in college sports.
The group examines why the CSC made this move and explore how this shift fits into the broader landscape of the House settlement, class‑counsel oversight and the growing tension between efficiency and enforcement.

The conversation then turns to the immediate legal fallout from the five‑for‑five rule. Lawsuits were filed within hours of passage — including a case on behalf of 15 athletes in Ohio — and dozens more are expected across multiple states. The panel digs into the roster‑limit complications that could arise if courts grant injunctions, the possibility of designated‑student‑athlete status returning and why the NCAA may prefer chaos over creating new incentives for litigation.

Finally, the episode closes with a legal breakdown of the Sorsby vs. NFL situation — including why antitrust claims are dead on arrival due to the non‑statutory labor exemption, why state‑law claims are preempted by federal labor law and why the NFLPA is unlikely to support a grievance that would cost a current member a roster spot.

Topics include:
• The CSC’s decision to raise the NIL Go review threshold to $15,000
• Why the Big Ten and SEC pushed for faster NIL deal approvals
• How NIL Go review, fair‑market‑value checks and valid‑business‑purpose rules now interact
• The first wave of five‑for‑five lawsuits — and why many more are coming
• Whether eliminating waivers entirely violates judicial expectations for individualized review
• Roster‑limit challenges and the possibility of designated‑student‑athlete status
• The “ghost‑rule” transfer‑portal penalty and why plaintiffs are targeting it
• The legal reality of Sorsby’s supplemental‑draft fight with the NFL

Subscribe for weekly conversations on NIL, athlete compensation, eligibility, governance, antitrust issues and the rapidly changing business of college sports.

The Brendan Sorsby saga is finally over—but the fallout may be just beginning.

On this episode of uNILateral Decisions, Joe Nickell is joined by Mike Walsh, and Sam Ehrlich to break down the conclusion of one of the most controversial eligibility disputes in recent college athletics history. After months of legal battles, public pressure, and conference intervention, Sorsby and Texas Tech have agreed to end the fight for NCAA eligibility, with Sorsby instead declaring for the NFL Supplemental Draft.

But the panel argues that the real story isn't Sorsby.

The group examines how the Big 12's unprecedented decision to challenge one of its own member institutions may have provided a blueprint for the future of college sports governance. Could conferences become the true power brokers in college athletics? Is this proof that conferences can enforce rules and protect their collective interests when the NCAA cannot?

The conversation also explores the growing push for federal legislation, including the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA), and why lawmakers, conferences, athletes, and professional player associations are increasingly finding themselves on opposite sides of the debate. The hosts discuss whether Congress can realistically solve college athletics' governance issues—or if collective bargaining and conference-led models are the more likely path forward.

Topics include:
• The resolution of the Brendan Sorsby eligibility case
• Why Texas Tech and Sorsby ultimately backed down
• The Big 12's lawsuit and what it means for conference authority
• State attorney general involvement in college sports disputes
• The Protect College Sports Act (PCSA)
• Federal legislation versus conference governance
• Collective bargaining and athlete employment
• Whether conferences like the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 will shape the future of college athletics

Subscribe for weekly conversations on NIL, athlete compensation, eligibility, governance, antitrust issues, and the rapidly changing business of college sports.

This week on uNILateral Decisions, the crew breaks down one of the most controversial rulings of the college sports offseason: the injunction that will allow Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby to play despite violating NCAA gambling rules.

With no written opinion from the judge, the panel explores why Sorsby may have prevailed in court, whether the case was really about gambling or mental health, and why the decision has sparked concern across college athletics. The conversation then shifts to what happens next as the NCAA appeals the ruling, the likelihood of any legal resolution before the 2026 season, and what this case could mean for future eligibility disputes.

The discussion also examines the fallout surrounding Texas Tech, including public statements from programs like Georgia and Nebraska, reports of potential scheduling boycotts, and whether the Big 12 could use its conference bylaws to punish either Sorsby or Texas Tech itself.

Finally, the guys answer this week's uNILateral Decision: If you could direct Congress, the NCAA, the CFP, or the Big 12 to take action, what would you do?

From courtrooms to conference politics, this episode explores the legal, competitive, and governance challenges that continue to reshape college sports.