AUSTIN, Texas — Texas coach Steve Sarkisian said when it comes to recruiting in the age of NIL revenue sharing, Texas needs prospects to look at “long-term money” instead of “short-term money.”

On the 3rd & Longhorn podcast with former Longhorn football players Jeremy Hills, Derrick Johnson, Alex Okafor, Fozzy Whittaker and Rod Babers as well as host Nick Shuley, Sarkisian said prospects might need to be willing to take a little less money up front to become a Longhorn for the “opportunity to create more opportunities” once they’re at Texas.

“Maybe we get a guy for a little bit less than another school’s offering, especially in this day and age,” Sarkisian said, referring to the House vs. NCAA settlement, which caps NIL revenue sharing between schools and their student-athletes at $20.5 million beginning July 1. “That’s gotta happen, because every Power Four school’s got, at minimum, the same amount of money [$20.5 million].

“So, if we’re trying to assemble a group of talented people, well, every talented person is going to require some money. If I don’t have as many talented people, I’m going to have more money to offer Johnny.

“Well, Johnny has to see the forest through the trees a little bit and say, ‘This is short-term money. I want to look at more of the long-term money. And Texas is going to provide me an opportunity to create more opportunities, whether it’s on the field, off the field, degree, NIL, brand-building, player development opportunity in the NFL.

“What does that look like for me? I’ve got a lot more lanes  to go achieve that [at Texas] than just this spot over here that’s got one avenue.’

“We’ve got a lot of avenues for guys to come here and be really successful. So there’s a lot to it. But like I said, I think we have the best product in the US. I don’t think there’s another school that can say that. And, oh, by the way, Forbes magazine last year, wrote [Texas and Rice are] the new Ivy League.

“Name another school who’s getting compared to Harvard, Yale and Princeton, but on the flip side, is getting compared to Georgia, Ohio State and Alabama on the football field?”

Sarkisian gave a list of things Texas can uniquely offer a recruit in addition to NIL money, including back-to-back College Football Playoff semifinal appearances; having the most players selected in the NFL Draft the last two years (23), including six D-linemen and five running backs; reaching the SEC title game in Year 1 in the league; as well as three straight top-five recruiting classes, including the top-ranked class in 2025.

In a world where many questions regarding collegiate student-athlete compensation have been answered, even greater concerns are looming.

On Monday, Texas A&M Director of Athletics Trev Alberts spoke to the media regarding Texas A&M’s future financial plan in the wake of the NCAA v. House settlement.

While the mysteries of athlete compensation have been solved, it is far from over, as the NCAA is still having to deal with a number of lawsuits, and NIL regulation is still a massive concern to athletic directors and coaches across the country. With NCAA president Charlie Baker pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption to protect college sports from a slew of lawsuits, Alberts offered a differing opinion.

“We don’t need broad antitrust exemptions,” the Aggie AD said. “We need a skinny NIL bill that will basically do the foundations of what we need to be able to not live in a litigious environment every day, where we’re playing defense. We need to be playing offense.”

Alberts is correct in acknowledging that college sports need reformation in the form of NIL legislation, but with lawsuits piling up and the future of college athletics becoming more unstable with each passing day, is an antitrust exemption needed in order to achieve litigation-free player compensation AND competitive balance?

The reason the House settlement came around is that the NCAA couldn’t handle getting sued and losing lawsuits forever.

Alston v. NCAA, Carter v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, etc. These were almost all losing battles, and every dollar that the NCAA has to spend on legal fees is a dollar not being directly invested into collegiate sports. Despite the efforts to repair damages with this settlement, it is far from perfect. A large downside of this settlement, as it was explicitly said by Judge Claudia Wilken, is that it does not protect the NCAA from future lawsuits.

Aside from the Title IX lawsuits that are already on the table in just the first few weeks, there are a few more aspects of the settlement that people could challenge in court:

1. “Anti-competitive” nature of having a salary cap
2. NIL Go clearinghouse process and restrictions

This raises the question of how do we avoid these exhausting lawsuits while also ensuring competitive balance with NIL?

Right now, there seem to be two clear solutions:

1. The NCAA is granted Congressional protection (antitrust exemption)
2. The NCAA and its athletes come to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

Let’s break down what each of those pathways would entail.

Limited Antitrust Exemption
A limited antitrust exemption granted by Congress would allow the NCAA to operate in a capacity that shields it from lawsuits. An antitrust exemption would likely allow the NCAA to have ultimate say when it comes to player compensation, NIL compensation, transfer portal regulations and more. It would also allow the NCAA to preserve the concept of “amateurism” and not claim athletes as employees, which would have its benefits.

While this kind of congressional protection could allow the NCAA to set and enforce uniform guidelines to stabilize college athletics without the fear of lawsuits, there are downsides. It could potentially allow the NCAA and its schools to not comply fully with Title IX. This antitrust exemption would also likely take away any and all ability for athletes to negotiate for fair compensation and allow for the NCAA to operate behind a veil with no obligation to be transparent and accountable for its actions.

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
Collective bargaining through employment is often seen as a middle ground to antitrust exemption that allows for athletes to have greater bargaining power. The NBA and NFL both have collective bargaining that dictates how revenue is split between owners and players, scheduling, drug policies, player safety and more. It is not exactly apples to apples when comparing these professional leagues to college athletics because not every sport generates revenue. Plus, you’re talking about just 1,700 players that play the same sport the way that the NFL is. You’re talking about over 540,000 student athletes across more than 20 sports (both men’s and women’s). This CBA would be much more complicated than anything the professional sports leagues have seen.

However, if every athlete agrees on certain standards, you can distribute compensation fairly without a fear of lawsuits while also agreeing on a more stable middle ground in terms of NIL and transfer portal regulation that would stretch uniformly across every school in the league. There wouldn’t be a need for Congress to write new NIL laws that preempt state laws. The NCAA, with the help of athletes and other representatives, could agree on regulations that would be enforced by the NCAA and difficult to challenge in court because they would be a part of the CBA. Even though Deloitte’s NIL Go clearinghouse does some auditing and regulating now, the process and “fair market” evaluations are not necessarily protected from litigation. Also, it’s not certain that complete competitive balance would be achieved through this, as some schools may not be able to afford paying athletes as “employees” if they have to meet certain minimum wage standards. You’re already seeing Olympic sports get cut from many schools, but a CBA could have the potential to accelerate those deficits and prevent many collegiate athletes from participating in sports at all.

The question is, with the NCAA trying to avoid lawsuits while athletic directors and coaches are demanding clear, uniform and enforced NIL regulations… could a limited antitrust exemption or a CBA be the answer to all of this?

Either way, greater power would be granted to the NCAA (or some other entity) that would allow it to operate without fear of litigation.

It could be a good thing for college sports to have basic uniformity where everyone is happy with their compensation, as well as competitive balance.

However, can we trust the NCAA to operate efficiently, transparently and with the athletes’ best interest in mind?

They have had 119 years to prove that and have, thus far, failed.

There’s another portal win for the South Carolina softball team. Former Ole Miss catcher Jamie Mackay has officially committed to the Gamecocks marking the eighth addition to the 2025 transfer class. It is also the second Ole Miss Rebel to flip to South Carolina, following teammate Tate Davis to the Gamecocks. Mackay has one year of eligibility remaining.

Mackay was a key part of the postseason run for the Rebels, appearing in 36 games during the season. She started 20 of those games, batting a .284 with 12 RBIs, 19 hits, two homeruns, and six runs scored. She also delivered one of the most memorable moments of the Women’s College World Series, delivering a game-tying 2-RBI single in the seventh inning against Oregon.

In her career, Mackay has a .262 average with six homeruns, 16 doubles, and 37 RBIs in 252 at-bats across three seasons. She is versatile too, starting 45 games in right field in 2024 after spending the majority of her career as a catcher.

Mackay joins a star-studded transfer class that includes:

• Josey Marron (Mississippi State RHP)

• Tori Ensley (NC State OF)

• Tate Davis (Ole Miss INF)

• Alyssa Hovermale (Florida INF)

• Emma Friedel (Kennesaw State P)

• Precious Bross (Georgia INF)

With Mackay now on the roster, Gamecock head coach Ashley Chastain-Woodard continues to build a championship-caliber team. And coming off the program’s first-ever Women’s College World Series appearance, this Gamecock squad will be ready for another run at a title.

Cooper Flagg
Dressin’ Like A ‘BOSS’ For Draft
Partners W/ Fashion Brand

Published June 25, 2025 3:11 PM PDT

College athletes are channeling their NIL earnings into venture capital investments. Front Office Sports reports that three college quarterbacks — including a potential top-five pick — are putting their money into VC-backed start-ups.

South Carolina’s LaNorris Sellers — projected as one of the top signal-callers in the 2026 NFL Draft — Southern Methodist University’s Kevin Jennings and Kansas State University’s Avery Johnson have invested in The Cashmere Fund. According to Front Office Sports, the fund is a “Nasdaq-listed venture capital fund that allows non-accredited investors to invest in VC-backed start-ups.”

Buffalo Bills players Josh Allen and Damar Hamlin are also investors.

“There was some business savvy in all of them,” Elia Infascelli, CEO of Cashmere, told Front Office Sports. “Avery Johnson is a business major, for example. They didn’t need to do this, but they wanted to.

“They are investors in the fund just like any other person would invest in the fund.”

Cashmere is working with college athletes to bring more attention to their fund and attract additional investors.

“At 18, 19, or 21, to think about long-term relationships and invest without any immediate upside today, that’s rare,” Infascelli explained.

NIL has created new opportunities for college athletes. For those who won’t turn pro, these ventures offer a path to financial stability beyond their college careers.

Matt Higgins worked in national and local news for 15 years. He started out as an overnight production assistant … More about Matt Higgins