Robert Griffin III is not backing down from Angel Reese, who went after him for claiming to have spoken to her inner circle about the Caitlin Clark hate. On X/Twitter, the former NFL quarterback told Reese that she should “tighten” her circle instead of “trying to check” him.

“I spoke up in support of Angel Reese against racism not to start drama,” Robert Griffin III wrote. “But I won’t let anyone twist the truth just because it’s inconvenient to them. Instead of trying to check me, just tighten up your circle. They calling me and saying you hate Caitlin Clark, not the other way around. I have zero interest in being the villain in anyone’s story. I just want to have fun, tell the truth and celebrate sports. But I won’t pretend or lie just to protect feelings.”

This began on Thursday morning when Griffin went after the fans who were attacking Angel Reese for being on the cover of NBA 2K26. In the social media post, Griffin said people in Reese’s inner circle talked to him about her relationship with Caitlin Clark.

“People in Angel’s inner circle called me and told me I was right and Angel Reese has grown to hate Caitlin Clark because of the media always asking her about Caitlin and being constantly compared to her,” Griffin wrote. Reese saw the post later in the morning and went after Griffin.

More on Robert Griffin III and Angel Reese

“Lying on this app when everybody know the first and last name of everybody in my circle for clout is nastyyyy work,” Reese wrote. It’s clear Reese doesn’t believe that Griffin spoke to anyone close to her about Clark.

In May, Griffin said that Reese hates Clark and explained his reason. “It could be the fact that Aliyah Boston had to save Angel Reese from ending her career,” Griffin said about an incident between Clark and Reese during a Chicago Sky vs. Indiana Fever game. “After the foul, Caitlin Clark put on Angel Reese, and Angel Reese tried to hit her. But if it wasn’t for Aliyah Boston putting her arms in the way, Angel Reese would not be playing basketball anymore, because she was going to sucker punch Caitlin Clark. Now, you tell me a time when you’ve seen somebody get fouled on a basketball court in a professional league, where they try to almost sucker punch somebody that they were friends with, because of a hard foul?”

Reese, who played at LSU, is having a strong start to her WNBA career. The 23-year-old is averaging 13.3 points and 12.8 rebounds this year. In 2024, Reese finished second in Rookie of the Year voting (behind Clark) after averaging 13.6 points and 13.1 rebounds.

The new agency in charge of regulating name, image, likeness deals in college sports sent a letter to schools Thursday saying it had rejected deals between players and donor-backed collectives formed over the past several years to funnel money to athletes or their schools.

Those arrangements hold no “valid business purpose,” the memo said, and don’t adhere to rules that call for outside NIL deals to be between players and companies that provide goods or services to the general public for profit.

The letter to Division I athletic directors could be the next step in shuttering today’s version of the collective, groups that are closely affiliated with schools and that, in the early days of NIL after July 2021, proved the most efficient way for schools to indirectly cut deals with players.

Since then, the landscape has changed yet again with the $2.8 billion House settlement that allows schools to pay the players directly as of July 1.

Already, collectives affiliated with Colorado, Alabama, Notre Dame, Georgia and others have announced they’re shutting down. Georgia, Ohio State and Illinois are among those that have announced plans with Learfield, a media and technology company with decades of licensing and other experience across college athletics, to help arrange NIL deals.

Outside deals between athlete and sponsor are still permitted, but any worth $600 or more have to be vetted by a clearinghouse called NIL Go that was established by the new College Sports Commission and is being run by the auditing group Deloitte.

In its letter to the ADs, the CSC said more than 1,500 deals have been cleared since NIL Go launched on June 11, “ranging in value from three figures to seven figures.” More than 12,000 athletes and 1,100 institutional users have registered to use the system.

But the bulk of the letter explained that many deals could not be cleared because they did not conform to an NCAA rule that sets a “valid business purpose” standard for deals to be approved.

The letter explained that if a collective reaches a deal with an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, the standard is not met because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit.

The same would apply to a deal an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because the purpose of “selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose” according to the NCAA rule.

Sports attorney Darren Heitner, who deals in NIL, said the guidance “could disproportionately burden collectives that are already committed to spending money on players for multiple years to come.”

“If a pattern of rejections results from collective deals submitted to Deloitte, it may invite legal scrutiny under antitrust principles,” he said.

On a separate track, some college sports leaders, including the NCAA, are seeking a limited form of antitrust protection from Congress.

The letter said a NIL deal could be approved if, for instance, the businesses paying the players had a broader purpose than simply acting as a collective. The letter uses a golf course or apparel company as examples.

“In other words, NIL collectives may act as marketing agencies that match student-athletes with businesses that have a valid business purpose and seek to use the student’s NIL to promote their businesses,” the letter said.

AP college sports: https://apnews.com/hub/college-sports

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

The new agency in charge of regulating name, image, likeness deals in college sports sent a letter to schools Thursday saying it had rejected deals between players and donor-backed collectives formed over the past several years to funnel money to athletes or their schools.

Those arrangements hold no “valid business purpose,” the memo said, and don’t adhere to rules that call for outside NIL deals to be between players and companies that provide goods or services to the general public for profit.

The letter to Division I athletic directors could be the next step in shuttering today’s version of the collective, groups that are closely affiliated with schools and that, in the early days of NIL after July 2021, proved the most efficient way for schools to indirectly cut deals with players.

Since then, the landscape has changed yet again with the $2.8 billion House settlement that allows schools to pay the players directly as of July 1.

Already, collectives affiliated with Colorado, Alabama, Notre Dame, Georgia and others have announced they’re shutting down. Georgia, Ohio State and Illinois are among those that have announced plans with Learfield, a media and technology company with decades of licensing and other experience across college athletics, to help arrange NIL deals.

Outside deals between athlete and sponsor are still permitted, but any worth $600 or more have to be vetted by a clearinghouse called NIL Go that was established by the new College Sports Commission and is being run by the auditing group Deloitte.

In its letter to the ADs, the CSC said more than 1,500 deals have been cleared since NIL Go launched on June 11, “ranging in value from three figures to seven figures.” More than 12,000 athletes and 1,100 institutional users have registered to use the system.

But the bulk of the letter explained that many deals could not be cleared because they did not conform to an NCAA rule that sets a “valid business purpose” standard for deals to be approved.

The letter explained that if a collective reaches a deal with an athlete to appear on behalf of the collective, which charges an admission fee, the standard is not met because the purpose of the event is to raise money to pay athletes, not to provide goods or services available to the general public for profit.

The same would apply to a deal an athlete makes to sell merchandise to raise money to pay that player because the purpose of “selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose” according to the NCAA rule.

Sports attorney Darren Heitner, who deals in NIL, said the guidance “could disproportionately burden collectives that are already committed to spending money on players for multiple years to come.”

“If a pattern of rejections results from collective deals submitted to Deloitte, it may invite legal scrutiny under antitrust principles,” he said.

On a separate track, some college sports leaders, including the NCAA, are seeking a limited form of antitrust protection from Congress.

The letter said a NIL deal could be approved if, for instance, the businesses paying the players had a broader purpose than simply acting as a collective. The letter uses a golf course or apparel company as examples.

“In other words, NIL collectives may act as marketing agencies that match student-athletes with businesses that have a valid business purpose and seek to use the student’s NIL to promote their businesses,” the letter said.