On September 25th, now former University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) quarterback Matthew Sluka announced he was leaving the UNLV Rebels football program immediately because, in his view, the representations pertaining to his name, image and likeness (NIL) arrangement were not upheld by the university.
According to Sluka’s father, and Marcus Cromartie, Sluka’s agent, Sluka was promised a NIL agreement of $100,000 to attend UNLV. Apparently, Cromartie did not discuss Sluka’s NIL deal with UNLV’s NIL collective, the Friends of UNILV. Instead, it appears the discussions were directly between Cromartie, offensive coordinator Brennan Marion and other UNLV coaches. In those discussions, it is reported that UNLV’s coaches stated that $100,000 in NIL money “wouldn’t be a problem.”
Complicating the matter further, the terms of Sluka’s NIL agreement between Cromartie and UNLV, were never put into writing, nor signed by the parties involved. Without paper documentation, the purported contract remains verbal in nature.
While oral contracts are enforceable under certain conditions, provided that the contract contains all of the legal elements of a contract, they must adhere to strict requirements. However, there are some types of contracts that must be in writing for them to be enforceable – these are contact subject to the “statue of frauds.” Under the Nevada statute of frauds (NRS 111.220), all contracts that cannot be performed within one year from the date of contracting must be in writing.
If Sluka wishes to enforce his NIL agreement, he must prove that both parties to the oral contract could fulfill their obligations in less than one year. What is paramount to this argument is when the contract was alleged to be accepted by Sluka and when the term was supposed to end. Currently, outside of the monetary terms, there are little to no specifics regarding the terms of Sluka’s NIL agreement. In an interview with SiriusXM Sports Radio, Cromartie stated “so we have an agreement that was as made in place in January (of 2024). You can’t sign a NIL agreement without the student being enrolled at the school. So there was seven months that we had to just wait and this verbal agreement was what it was.” Based on this statement, it is unclear when the contracting began – was it actually in January or was there an agreement in principle that was formally accepted when Sluka enrolled at UNLV. Further, we do not know when the alleged NIL agreement was to terminate – was it supposed to be at the end of the UNLV football season or the end of the 2024-2025 UNLV school year? Should Sluka seek to enforce this alleged verbal NIL contract, these facts will be crucial in determining the outcome of this dispute.
In addition, should Sluka seek to enforce his verbal NIL agreement, he has another obstacle to overcome – NIL pay-for-play agreements are unauthorized by NCAA rules and Nevada state law. While the NIL landscape has undergone changes in recent years, one rule has stayed consistent – NIL agreements cannot be pay-for play, and there must be quid pro quo between both parties. In this situation, it appears Sluka was promised $100,000 to enroll at UNLV and play football this fall – this is the definition of pay-for-play. If Sluka attempts to enforce the verbal agreement in court, the court may refuse to enforce the agreement on public policy grounds because Sluka’s agreement was against NCAA rules and Nevada’s NIL law.
For these two reasons, and based on the information available, it looks like Sluka has an uphill battel to enforce his verbal NIL agreement with UNLV.