uNILateral Decisions

In this episode of uNILateral Decisions, Joe, Mike, and Sam tackle one of the biggest questions facing college athletics: could collective bargaining actually work? The conversation dives into the structural challenges of organizing athletes across schools, conferences, and even state lines, while unpacking what it would take to establish a unified voice. They explore the legal, logistical, and financial hurdles that make the model complicated—but not impossible. From comparisons to existing labor systems to potential paths forward, this episode lays out both the skepticism and the opportunity behind one of the most talked-about ideas in the future of college sports.

In this episode of uNILateral Decisions, the conversation dives into the shifting power dynamics of multimedia rights companies in college athletics—and how the House v. NCAA settlement could redefine their role. Traditionally, companies like Learfield, JMI Sports, and Playfly Sports have operated as intermediaries, guaranteeing revenue to schools while monetizing assets like sponsorships, signage, and media rights. But with NIL reshaping the ecosystem, those same companies are now stepping into athlete-related deals—blurring the lines between institutional partners and market participants.At the center of the debate is whether these MMR companies should be classified as “associated entities” under the House settlement, which would subject their deals to review by the College Sports Commission. That designation could significantly limit how they structure athlete compensation, raising questions about fairness, market value, and competitive balance. Meanwhile, some schools are already adapting by bringing NIL operations in-house—often still powered by their MMR partners—creating even more gray area in how these relationships are defined.The episode also explores the growing antitrust tension surrounding these restrictions. If third-party entities like MMR companies are capped or constrained in what they can offer athletes, does that cross into price-fixing territory? With antitrust exemptions historically rare and narrowly applied, the group examines whether the current framework can hold—or if it’s setting up the next wave of legal challenges.Ultimately, this discussion highlights a central truth: while the House settlement aims to create structure in a rapidly evolving system, the intersection of NIL, third-party rights holders, and athlete compensation is anything but settled.

Tampering is nothing new in college sports, but is anyone actually trying to stop it?In Episode 9, the crew dives into the latest fallout from Iowa’s tampering violations and unpacks a system where enforcement feels inconsistent, penalties miss the mark, and the real decision-makers often walk away untouched. From self-reporting debates to whether consequences ever truly outweigh the reward, the conversation questions if the NCAA has any real control left.They explore what penalties could work (if any), why college sports can’t mirror pro leagues when it comes to enforcement, and how the current structure may actually encourage the very behavior it claims to prevent. With transfer rules, NIL dynamics, and legal challenges all colliding, tampering has become less of a violation, and more of a strategy.The episode also looks ahead: Could multi-year contracts and buyouts slow the chaos? Or are we headed toward a system where movement is inevitable and regulation is purely performative?Plus, the uNILateral Decision: If you were in charge, how would you stop tampering in a system where the rules may not even be enforceable?

Can an executive order actually fix college sports?In Episode 8, the guys break down the latest federal push to “save” college athletics, unpacking what the executive order says—and what it actually means. From directives aimed at the NCAA and federal agencies to potential challenges against state NIL laws, the conversation explores how much power is really behind the headlines.They dig into the gap between intent and reality, questioning whether this is a meaningful step toward structure or simply a political signal designed to spark action in Congress. With legal limitations, court precedent, and enforcement uncertainty all in play, the episode highlights why this moment may create more confusion than clarity across college athletics.Plus, they tackle the real-world impact: If you’re an athletic director, do you change course now—or stay the path until something actually holds up in court?

What even is eligibility anymore?In Episode 7, the guys break down the rapidly evolving landscape of NCAA eligibility—from postgame frustrations like Nate Oats’ comments on Charles Bediako, to the growing wave of legal challenges reshaping who gets to play and why. What was once governed by NCAA waivers is now being decided in courtrooms, with inconsistent rulings, new loopholes, and a system struggling to keep up.They explore how we got here, why eligibility rules are being challenged as restrictions on earning potential, and whether fairness still exists in a system filled with exceptions. The conversation dives into the tension between structure and opportunity—highlighting the real-world impact on athletes navigating a high-stakes, unpredictable environment.Plus, they tackle the big question: Is eligibility a right that belongs to the athlete, or a rule that belongs to the system?

The conversation around college athletics is no longer confined to campuses and courtrooms — it’s now front and center in Washington. In this episode of uNILateral Decisions, the group dives into the growing involvement of Congress, the flood of proposed legislation, and whether any real progress is actually being made.Joined by our usual crew — Dominic Shelden, Joe Nickell, Mike Walsh, and legal expert Sam Ehrlich — the discussion breaks down the competing forces shaping the national narrative. From NCAA lobbying efforts to athlete rights, employment questions, and conference power dynamics, the group explores what’s real, what’s noise, and what actually matters moving forward.The episode also takes a closer look at the idea of presidential involvement and the potential for an executive order. What could that realistically accomplish? Would it bring clarity, or just add another layer of complexity to an already fragmented system?To close things out, each guest shares one key element they believe must be included in any future legislation — offering a grounded look at what it will actually take to stabilize college athletics in the years ahead.

The evolution of college athletics has reached a new turning point. In 2025, a landmark settlement in House vs. NCAA fundamentally reshaped the relationship between student-athletes and their institutions, opening the door for direct revenue sharing and signaling a new era in college sports.In this episode of uNILateral Decisions, host Dominic Shelden is joined by former college athletics administrators Joe Nickell and Mike Walsh, along with sports law expert and professional Sam Ehrlich, to break down how this case came together, why it matters and what it means for the future of the NCAA. The group explores the years of legal pressure that led to this moment, and how prior cases like O'Bannon and Alston set the stage for a system that now allows athletes to participate more directly in the revenue they help generate. From NIL to revenue sharing, the structure of college athletics continues to shift in real time. The question is no longer whether athletes will be compensated.It's how far will this new model go and what will come next?

In the final episode of uNILateral Decisions, the conversation turns to one of the most recent legal battles shaping the future of college athletics.In 2023, a group of ten states and the department of justice filed suit against the NCAA in Ohio et al. vs. NCAA, challenging the organization’s rules around athlete transfers. The case quickly became another flashpoint in the growing legal pressure surrounding how the NCAA governs player movement and athlete rights.Dominic Shelden, Joe Nickell and Mike Walsh are joined once again by sports law expert and professor Sam Ehrlich to break down how this case emerged, why states became involved, and what it reveals about the rapidly shifting structure of college sports.The group reflects on the long chain of legal decisions that brought us here, from O’Bannon, to Alston, and now to the battles surrounding transfers and athlete mobility.The rules of college athletics continue to evolve in real time, and the question now isn’t whether change is coming, it’s how far it will go.

In Episode 3 of Unilateral Decisions, the conversation moves to the landmark 2021 Supreme Court case NCAA v. Alston, a ruling that fundamentally altered the landscape of college athletics.Dominic Shelden, Joe Nickell and Mike Walsh sit down with sports law expert and professor Sam Ehrlich to unpack how the case challenged the NCAA’s long-standing control over athlete compensation and why the court unanimously ruled against the organization.The decision itself focused on education-related benefits for student-athletes, but the broader impact went far beyond that narrow issue. The ruling opened the door to a wave of legal challenges and helped accelerate the arrival of the NIL era.In this episode, the group breaks down the legal arguments, the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and why Alston became the moment that signaled the NCAA’s traditional model could no longer stand.If O’Bannon cracked the door open, Alston blew it off the hinges.

The transformation of college athletics didn’t happen overnight.Years before NIL became a household term, another landmark lawsuit challenged the NCAA’s definition of amateurism, and forced the industry to confront a difficult question: should college athletes be compensated for the use of their name, image, and likeness?In this episode of uNILateral Decisions, Dominic Shelden is joined by former college athletics administrators Joe Nickell and Mike Walsh, along with sports law expert and professor Sam Ehrlich, to examine the 2014–15 case of O’Bannon vs. NCAA.What began with a familiar part of many fans’ childhoods, college sports video games, quickly evolved into one of the most influential legal battles in NCAA history. The case challenged the NCAA’s use of player likenesses and laid important groundwork for the NIL era that followed.Before today’s landscape of NIL deals, transfer rules, and athlete compensation, there was O’Bannon.And it helped push college sports one step closer to the modern era.

The modern era of college sports didn’t start with NIL.Long before athletes could profit from their name, image, and likeness, a landmark Supreme Court case reshaped the foundation of college athletics. In 1984, NCAA vs. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma challenged the NCAA’s control over college football television rights—and changed the power structure of college sports forever.In the first episode of uNILateral Decisions, host Dominic Shelden is joined by former college athletics administrators Joe Nickell and Mike Walsh, along with sports law expert and professor Sam Ehrlich, to explore the origins of today’s chaos in collegiate athletics.Before we can break down NIL disputes, eligibility lawsuits, or the growing professionalization of college athletes, we have to start with the moment that set everything in motion.How did we get here?This episode examines the case that cracked the NCAA’s control—and opened the door to the modern college sports landscape.