Advertise on podcast: uNILateral Decisions

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has entered the NCAA eligibility debate, signing an executive order that could give Class of 2022 athletes at Ohio universities another year of competition. But how much power does a governor actually have over NCAA eligibility rules? This week on uNILateral Decisions, the crew breaks down Ohio's executive order, its legal implications, and how a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision factors into the ongoing five-for-five eligibility debate. Could this trigger a domino effect across college athletics? Are we heading back to the early days of NIL, when states created their own rules and regulations? And if governors can intervene in NCAA eligibility decisions, who has the authority to stop them? The crew also discusses whether other governors will face pressure to follow Ohio's lead, what this could mean for states like Idaho, and how the NCAA might respond. This week's uNILateral Decision: If you're the governor of a state with universities affected by the five-for-five eligibility rule, do you issue a similar executive order? Another week, another legal battle reshaping college athletics.

Is paying college athletes really causing a financial crisis, or are schools blaming players for problems that existed long before revenue sharing? This week on uNILateral Decisions, Mike Walsh, Joe Nickell, and Sam Ehrlich welcome Dr. Greg Chick, founder of NILnomics, to take a closer look at the numbers driving the business of college athletics. The group breaks down the House settlement's salary cap, whether athletic department donations should count toward revenue sharing, and what a recent Government Accountability Office report actually tells us about college sports spending. They also discuss the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA), skyrocketing coaching salaries, expensive facilities, inconsistent financial reporting, and the growing influence of corporate business models in college athletics. Plus, Greg introduces a different way of thinking about the financial arms race: What if costs aren't driving the need for more revenue, but instead schools are spending more simply because they have more? The episode wraps up with each panelist identifying one financial claim in college athletics they'd like to see retired until someone can back it up with the books. Follow Greg Chick and NILnomics: https://nilnomics.com Subscribe to uNILateral Decisions for conversations on NIL, college sports law, athlete compensation, and the changing landscape of college athletics. #NIL #CollegeAthletics #RevenueSharing #NILnomics #SportsLaw #uNILateralDecisions

The NCAA’s eligibility fight isn’t slowing down — and neither are the lawsuits. This week on uNILateral Decisions, Joe, Mike and Sam break down the NCAA’s transition rule and the growing wave of litigation surrounding the move to the new five-for-five eligibility model. Why does it matter that the NCAA’s transition rule wasn’t actually included in its bylaws? We look at several major cases across the country and how courts are handling arguments over breach of contract, antitrust law and the Class of 2022. With appeals moving forward and athletes racing against the clock, could we finally be getting closer to some kind of precedent? The conversation also comes back to the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA) and its potential impact on these fights. Could an antitrust exemption change the landscape surrounding revenue sharing and other NCAA rules? And after doing more research since last week’s episode, Sam has changed his position on one major question: Is the PCSA constitutional? Plus, the guys debate whether the NCAA should simply stop fighting and grant the Class of 2022 another year of eligibility — or whether, after investing this much into the legal battle, it makes sense to see the fight through. We cover the NCAA transition rule, five-for-five eligibility, the Class of 2022 lawsuits, contract vs. antitrust claims, the importance of economic evidence, appellate stays, the PCSA’s proposed antitrust protections, private non-delegation concerns and what could finally bring some clarity to college sports eligibility.

The PCSA is closer than ever to becoming law. After passing all five procedural votes in the Senate with at least 70 votes each, the bill could be headed for a final Senate vote as early as next week. This week on uNILateral Decisions, the crew breaks down what changed to generate that level of support and what happens next if the bill makes it through the Senate. They dig into the reported amendments to the PCSA, including provisions surrounding conference expansion, MMRs and associated entities counting against the compensation cap, and questions around potential limits on coaching salaries. The conversation also covers some of the biggest pieces of the bill for college athletes, including 5-for-5 eligibility, the one-time transfer rule, the athlete compensation pool, and agent registration and certification. Finally, it’s time for a uNILateral Decision: Fast forward to December. The House has taken up the bill, every vote has been cast except yours, and your vote determines whether the PCSA becomes law. How are you voting?

This week on uNILateral Decisions, Joe Nickell, Mike Walsh, and Sam Ehrlich dig into the other side of the eligibility chaos — the cases where athletes didn’t receive an extra year. While headlines make it seem like every lawsuit leads to a fifth season, the reality is far more complicated, and the hosts break down why certain courts are pushing back. The conversation centers on the three major categories of eligibility litigation: the massive wave of class‑of‑2022 lawsuits, JUCO‑year disputes inspired by Diego Pavia and Tristan Smith, and the increasingly contentious cases involving former professional athletes. Sam walks through how these categories intersect, why some courts are granting relief, and why others are shutting the door. They also unpack the “big three” states — Tennessee, Georgia, and Ohio — where appellate courts have issued stays on previously granted injunctions, creating a national split in how judges view breach‑of‑contract claims, property‑interest arguments, and the NCAA’s role as a private association with monopsony power. The hosts explore how personal jurisdiction, shifting plaintiffs between states, and massive multi‑athlete filings are shaping the litigation strategy. The episode wraps with a look at TROs vs. preliminary injunctions, the NCAA’s perfect record on appellate stays, and what happens next as athletes continue filing, courts diverge, and the Protect College Sports Act adds new layers of uncertainty. Topics include:The three major categories of eligibility lawsuits: class of 2022, JUCO‑year claims, and former prosWhy Tennessee, Georgia, and Ohio became the “big three” denialsHow appellate stays are reshaping the national landscapeThe evolving breach‑of‑contract argument — and why some courts no longer buy itPersonal jurisdiction battles and moving plaintiffs across statesTROs vs. preliminary injunctions — and why the injunction is the real ballgameThe NCAA’s success in securing appellate staysWhether athletes can refile in more favorable statesHow the Protect College Sports Act complicates eligibility going forwardJoe, Mike, and Sam’s uNILateral Decisions on what should happen next Subscribe for weekly conversations on NIL, athlete compensation, eligibility, governance, antitrust issues, and the rapidly changing business of college sports.

Some of the most interesting cases in college sports messed around… but stopped just short of finding out. This week on uNILateral Decisions, we’re looking back at the cases that could have given us real answers to some of the biggest unresolved questions in college athletics, if they had actually made it to a decision. From the SEC and LSU showdown to Demond Williams, Darian Mensah and Brendan Sorsby, we break down what each case could have decided and the precedent it might have created. Then we turn to two questions college sports still can’t seem to answer: Are college athletes employees? And will athletes ever successfully unionize? Finally, for this week’s uNILateral Decision: we were robbed of the chance to find out whether the SEC would actually vote to kick LSU out of the conference. We decide whether that vote needed to happen.

College football has All-America teams, All-Conference teams… and now, apparently, it needs an All-Litigation Team. This week on uNILateral Decisions, Mike Walsh, Joe Nickell, Dominic Shelden and Sam Ehrlich draft the best and most intriguing players taking the field in 2026 because somewhere along the way, a judge said they could. From eligibility clocks and JUCO seasons to medical-hardship waivers, transfer restrictions and players attempting to return from the NFL, the guys break down the lawsuits, injunctions and court orders that are reshaping who gets to play college football — including one eligibility battle funded by Lil Wayne. Then, they turn to College Football’s Market Movers — the players whose decisions, deals and dollars are defining the player market in 2026. Dante Moore, Jeremiah Smith, Darian Mensah, Sam Leavitt, Bryce Underwood and others provide a look at everything from multimillion-dollar retention battles and transfer negotiations to the growing financial incentive for elite players to stay in college. Finally, the guys make their uNILateral Decision: What is one thing happening in today’s player market that college football should embrace rather than try to regulate away?

This week on uNILateral Decisions, Mike Walsh, Joe Nickell, and Sam Ehrlich sit down with Olivia Nuss, Assistant Attorney General in Louisiana, to break down the state’s sweeping new approach to regulating NIL agents — a framework that could reshape athlete protection across college sports. The conversation digs into why Louisiana moved first, what problems the law is designed to solve, and how the absence of national standards has allowed predatory behavior to flourish in the NIL marketplace. The hosts explore the realities behind NIL deal‑making, including the rise of unregulated agents, the financial risks facing high school and college athletes, and the legal gaps left by outdated federal statutes like UAAA and SPARTA. Olivia walks through the details of Louisiana’s new registration system — from background checks and training modules to disclosure requirements and enforcement powers — and explains why state‑level oversight has become the only viable path while the NCAA remains unable to regulate third‑party actors. Topics include: Why NIL agents have operated with little oversight — and how that created space for predatory contractsLouisiana’s new agent‑registration system and mandatory training requirementsHow background checks, disclosures, and public registries aim to protect high school and college athletesThe legal limitations of UAAA and SPARTA in the modern NIL eraWhy the NCAA cannot regulate NIL agents without major antitrust exposureExamples of exploitative NIL deals and long‑term athlete lock‑insThe role of the Attorney General’s office in enforcement, penalties, and athlete remediesHow state‑level regulation could influence future federal legislation Subscribe for weekly conversations on NIL, athlete compensation, eligibility, governance, antitrust issues, and the rapidly changing business of college sports.

Dominic Shelden, Mike Walsh, Sam Ehrlich and Joe Nickell are back to break down another chaotic week in college sports. The NCAA’s new five-years-to-play-five rule has created immediate fallout, with members of the 2022 class fighting for another season of eligibility — and winning in courtrooms across the country. Some players who had already moved on to NFL camps are now being allowed to return to college football, while new lawsuits are challenging transfer restrictions and forcing the NCAA to defend even more of its rulebook. Sam breaks down why courts continue ruling against the NCAA, what the pending Tenth Circuit decision could mean, and why these cases could have implications well beyond the 2022 class. The group also discusses how coaches handle players unexpectedly returning at the end of fall camp, the challenges these late roster changes create for the NIL and collectibles industries, whether the NCAA’s transfer portal window could be the next rule to fall, and whether all of this chaos actually improves the chances of federal legislation passing. Plus, the Unilateral Decision: If you’re a coach with a full roster and a former player suddenly becomes eligible to return, do you make room for them? Joe has a solution. It gets cold-blooded.

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 LSULSU giving No. 5 to another playerNIL rights after an athlete leaves schoolEditorial use vs. commercial use of former athletesHistorical highlights and broadcast NILSponsored content featuring former playersRetired jerseys vs. retired numbersHow schools should handle legacy athletesWhy NIL agreements may need to address these rights moving forwardA 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. Topics include:Stanford football’s move toward unionization and support for the College Football Players AssociationWhy 30% athlete support matters—and why conference‑wide action is the real thresholdThe ACC’s unique public/private membership challenge for collective bargainingHow roster turnover and timing make union momentum fragile heading into fall campThe growing acceptance of athlete employment status among coaches and ADsWhy conferences—not the NCAA—are the most logical bargaining unitsThe legal and political barriers to creating a private employer model for college athletesWhether voluntary recognition could accelerate change—or trigger NCAA backlashWhy federal legislation remains option A, and collective bargaining option B, for the Power TwoMike, 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 amendmentsWhy conferences could be capped at 19 membersNotre Dame's role in future conference realignmentA proposed $20M player retention fundThe missed opportunity in athlete licensing and jersey salesWhy federal legislation still faces an uphill battleMike, 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 modelA promotion-and-relegation proposal for FBS footballReturning Olympic sports to regional conferencesThe financial pressures facing athletic departmentsEmployee-status litigation and its impact on college athleticsTitle IX challenges in the revenue-sharing eraWhether 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.