NIL as it currently stands seems unsustainable. Nevertheless, teams with resources seemed happy to keep pushing it up as long as it kept them on top. Perhaps when and outsider comes in and starts turning winners into losers, governing bodies will say enough is enough and address the inevitable.

So that we're clear, NIL (name, image, and likeness) is a legal concept. It is the basis for the right of publicity tort, which says that an individual (or that person's representative/estate) should be able to control the use of their name, image, and likeness and any attached value. There is sound thinking here, the individual has created value in their "brand" and others shouldn't be able to benefit off of it without the consent of the individual.

But the pay to play character of NIL deals has become undeniable. Should there be regulations requiring disclosure of the specific use and anticipated benefit to come from a players name, image, and likeness in association with a sponsoring entity (I'm not sure to what extent this exists) and caps to attach and account for that value? Between the NCAA money teams have to compensate players directly and reasonable limits to NIL from external organizations based of real value of players' NIL contributions, there can still be substantial player compensation without blowing up competitiveness. A solution needs to be developed and actions such as BYU's may be just the trigger to get the ball rolling in the right direction.