Behind the scenes, the battle for big-name transfer QBs has never been more competitive. Here's how schools are trying to work around the latest rules to get top talent in the door.
Last weekend, former Cincinnati quarterback Brendan Sorsby visited two campuses as he determined his next destination: LSU and Texas Tech.
Ultimately, he committed to the Red Raiders for a price tag of at least $5 million in annual compensation.
Behind the scenes, the Big 12 and SEC programs battled for Sorsby in what is believed to be the highest-priced bidding war in college football history, at least since such compensation was legalized last summer.
The lofty money figure has left many within the industry asking a question.
How can a school remain under or even near the revenue-share cap of $20.5 million while paying a single player such a high salary?
While that answer is obvious to some — the use of third-party NIL marketing deals exempt from counting against the cap — there is now documented proof.
It comes in the form of a $3.5 million package offered to Sorsby through LSU’s multi-media rights partner, Playfly Sports Properties.
The 11-page document between Playfly and Sorsby, obtained by Yahoo Sports, is unsigned and is only a proposed service agreement, but it offers a fascinating window into the new world of college athlete compensation, where schools are using multi-media rights partners, marketing agencies, corporate sponsors and apparel brands to, perhaps legally, exceed the industry’s new quasi-salary cap.
The one-year NIL agreement with Sorsby, in theory, is only a portion of his total compensation. In fact, language in the contract suggests that the school planned to compensate Sorsby through direct university revenue-share with an additional amount — likely at least $1 million — for a total payment competitive with Texas Tech’s offer.
The $3.5 million is an NIL-related marketing guarantee struck with Playfly “on behalf” of NILSU MAX, an independent, self-sustaining entity formed in conjunction with LSU athletics and Playfly to “identify and secure NIL opportunities for Tiger student athletes,” according to its page on the university’s website.
In essence, NILSU MAX, acting as a marketing agency, is charged with fulfilling the $3.5 million guarantee by landing sponsorship deals for Sorsby through Playfly’s corporate partners and affiliates — the act of redirecting sponsorship dollars that in the past often only went to the athletic department.
While this is a legitimate practice used across the country and a concept that is permitted as part of college athletics’ new revenue-share structure, none of the millions guaranteed to Sorsby had been approved through the industry’s new enforcement arm, the College Sports Commission, and its clearinghouse, NIL Go, which is charged with assuring third-party contracts have a “valid business purpose” and do not exceed an established “range of compensation”.
That’s where things get tricky.
Will these deals pass the clearinghouse?
While universities are prohibited from offering athletes third-party NIL guarantees, third parties themselves are permitted to do so.
The Sorsby contract proposal shines a light on the method in which universities — not just LSU — are assembling financial packages for some athletes: with a portion of direct university revenue-share payments, plus a portion of NIL third-party guarantees that have been promised yet not cleared.
It could make for some anxious moments this spring, when the clearinghouse is expected to receive an influx in third-party contracts that have already been guaranteed to athletes. If a player accepts compensation from a deal denied by the clearinghouse, he or she is deemed ineligible barring a successful appeal through an arbitration system that, as of this point, hasn’t been utilized.
“There’s going to be some rude awakening when these deals start to be submitted,” says one college sports official who spoke to Yahoo Sports under condition of anonymity. “This is going to end with a lot of these guarantees not being met.”
Both Playfly and LSU declined to comment when reached this week about the proposed contract for Sorsby.
In the past, LSU officials have been public about their work to adhere to new revenue-share policies and are in constant communication with officials at the College Sports Commission. The university has had just one submitted NIL agreement denied by the clearinghouse, one school official told Yahoo Sports.
Individual sponsorship deals secured by NILSU MAX would, presumably, each feature their own contract, money figure (that goes toward the $3.5 million) and a separate set of required deliverables from Sorsby.
But what if NILSU MAX cannot fulfill the $3.5 million guarantee with sponsorships?
According to the contract, the agency would foot the bill by using Sorsby’s likeness in promotional materials as well as the quarterback performing a very limited amount of “services” — many of which are most similar to the deliverables featured in school-affiliated booster-collective contracts over the last four years (appearances, autograph signings, etc.).
LSU’s proposed guarantee with Sorsby may have eventually cleared NIL Go. After all, he was ranked as one of the top quarterbacks in the portal playing at a powerhouse program under offensive-minded Lane Kiffin — all variables in driving up the commercial value of the player and improving the chance that the individual deals will pass the clearinghouse.
But that’s not necessarily the case with all of these contracts.
Within college sports, the guarantees go beyond individual players. For instance, as part of LSU’s agreement to hire Lane Kiffin away from Ole Miss, the university promised him a roster value of at least $25 million — roughly $5 million over the sport’s new revenue-share cap ($20.5M) meant to be spent on all athletes.
LSU isn’t alone in any of this. During this year’s coaching cycle, multiple athletic administrators built in a roster guarantee as a way to attract their new head coach.
On the individual level, Sorsby’s contract is likely similar to dozens signed by quarterbacks and other high-profile players, either to remain at their current school or leave for a competitor. One agent recently told Yahoo Sports that the annual compensation for top-end seasoned power conference quarterbacks is as high as $7 million when factoring in incentives.
Many college sports stakeholders and legal experts say that deals eventually denied by the clearinghouse may result in challenges through the court system. One of those includes LSU’s own coach, Kiffin, who’s repeatedly said publicly over the last year that he expects the industry’s new system to be the subject of lawsuits.
A failing system
Kiffin isn't alone in his doubt in the system. The current unorthodox model is, in fact, leading many others to stump for a new compensation structure. In a wide-ranging story published at Yahoo Sports in June, several power conference athletic directors publicly voiced their support for a collective-bargaining model as a way to establish rules, regulations and some stability.
The fear of athlete employment grips much of the industry.
For instance, the proposed NIL contract identifies Sorsby as an independent contractor, specifically noting that it is not an employment agreement. The same goes for revenue-share contracts issued from schools to athletes.
Sorsby’s proposed NIL contract includes individual incentives like many such coaching agreements with universities. The quarterback could have earned an additional $500,000 if he met all of the incentives, the biggest of which is winning the Heisman Trophy or Maxwell Award ($200,000). The incentives are built into the contract with the expectation that the player’s “branding opportunities” will increase with the success, according to the contract language.
Texas Tech’s deal for Sorsby, while remaining undisclosed, was expected to be structured in a similar way, using a combination of university revenue-share and NIL deals to reach, at the very least, the $5 million mark. The deal includes a significant investment from the school’s apparel partner, adidas, sources tell Yahoo Sports.
This is the sport’s new world.
Schools are employing multimedia rights partners, marketing agencies and apparel brands to use corporate sponsors to direct their distribution to athletes instead of to the school. Those in the industry term this as a “redirect of revenue,” and it has been at the center of recent discussions among college sports executives, some of whom want to prohibit such.
There’s a brewing bidding war unfolding among multimedia rights holders like Playfly, Learfield and JMI, as well as apparel brands like Nike, Under Armour and adidas, each jockeying to offer schools the best NIL-centric contract to gain university partnerships.
Multimedia rights partners are already paying schools millions in licensing agreements to sell their intellectual property, such as marks and logos, and apparel brands distribute millions in cash to the biggest school brands to outfit their teams.
Corporate sponsors want both — the marks plus the athletes — for the most lucrative NIL deals, Craig Sloan, the CEO of Playfly Sports, told Yahoo Sports in the summer. During that interview, Sloan said Playfly doesn’t guarantee schools a certain amount of NIL for their athletes, but, moreso, “shares a vision” with schools on a “need number” for NIL.
Learfield is approaching it in a similar fashion.
Last year, Learfield announced new NIL-related partnerships with several power programs, including Texas, Georgia and Oklahoma — all of these deals billed as a way to “unlock new revenue-generating opportunities” for athletes. Playfly, meanwhile, struck a 15-year, $515 million deal with Texas A&M last summer, believed to be one of the most lucrative multimedia rights contracts in the history of college athletics and one that offers NIL components.
The market is 'insane'
There’s something else muddying the portal compensation waters, though.
This spring, many schools, but not all, paid millions to players on their 2025 roster before the implementation of the new enforcement entity and the creation of the cap. This concept of “frontloading” contracts — LSU and Texas Tech both did so — provides them with excess cash to use in the portal. This is something that has caught the ire of those coaches who did not frontload money.
“The whole point of this was for us all to be playing by the same rules, but we are not,” Cincinnati coach Scott Satterfield said in July. “We are not playing by the same rules, particularly this past spring when everybody is apparently frontloading where others are having to now spend their [revenue-share] cap.”
Sorsby’s going rate of $5 million is toward the top of the sport, but it’s not at all surprising.
Most veteran power conference quarterbacks are demanding at least $2 million. But it’s not only QBs. On Sunday, two days into the 15-day transfer portal opening, roughly one-fifth of FBS players were already in the system. Power conference edge rushers, offensive tackles, cornerbacks and receivers — all fetching the highest price among positions — are requesting well into the seven figures, those with knowledge of the negotiations tell Yahoo Sports.
“It’s insane,” says one college official.
But when comparing a football roster’s compensation to a football coaching staff, it becomes more sensible. For instance, at least a half-dozen head coaches will earn $10 million or more next year — a strikingly high figure when compared to their athlete counterparts. Most power conference schools are allotting roughly $13-16 million of their revenue-share pool to football rosters this year, excluding any third-party NIL guarantees.
Will all of these deals pass the clearinghouse?
A stiff test for the system looms this spring after transfer portal-related signings. But that assumes athletes will submit deals. Non-compliance is a concern among some college stakeholders, especially given the upstart nature of the new enforcement entity.
The College Sports Commission currently has nine employees, including one on the investigative team. The organization only just started in June.
Another issue arose last month that may hamper the CSC’s enforcement capabilities, when a group of power conference universities declined to sign the organization’s “participation agreement” geared to protect it from legal challenges from the school themselves. The agreement is in the midst of being modified with hopes to get all 68 power conference schools to sign in the near future.
Category: General Sports
