Second, there needs to be some sort of "salary cap" here. If we accept WBB as a professional sport now, then that should be a part of the deal.
Today it's all about the name on the back of the jersey, not on the front. Some of these young women will learn someday that in the real world of business, employers prize loyalty.
The House v NCAA court settlement did create a salary cap: that is the "revenue share" that each team can elect to opt in (or out) of participating. Our university decided to tie each program's portion of revenue share to a rough approximation of revenue they produce. So the UNC WBB program has a salary cap of $205K.
The problem in practice is that athletes also have a court mandated right to profit off of their Name Image and Likeness. It is logical and right that a player has a market value beyond just the school that they attend. They can create deals with brands that have nothing to do with their school, Deja Kelly as an example did a tom of these. JC Penny and Crocs did not care where she went to school. I think their right to this money is sensible and just. The courts certainly agree.
So the problem then becomes, how do you determine if an NIL deal is legit or is it just a "pay for play" booster deal disguised as a legit business deal? That is the current wild west of player pay. And it is a tough problem to adjudicate.
The House v. NCAA settlement created an NCAA Clearinghouse called the "College Sports Commission" that is supposed to review every NIL deal for both legitimacy and reasonable market value. All of this is done pretty privately so we do not know specifics. But as of Jan 1st they had already rejected 524 deals worth $14.94 million, while clearing 17,321 worth $127.21 million. So that is about a 90% clearance rate. Given that we know at least half of this in reality is pay-for-play, but roughly 90% gets cleared, it is pretty clear they are erring on the side of approving all buyt the most egregious fake deals.
The College Sports Commission has rejected nearly $15 million in name, image and likeness agreements since it started evaluating them over the summer, representing more than 10% of the value of all the deals it has analyzed and closed.
www.espn.com
And after the football transfer portal, the system was strained and ineffective:
Deals tied to collectives and institutional partners are overwhelming the CSC and triggering growing legal and conference scrutiny
www.cbssports.com
Between January and February, 3,704 NIL deals worth $39.29 million were cleared, while 187 deals worth $14.36 million were rejected. The clearinghouse at least tried to crack down on deals from Booster collectives,
So NIL is allowed, and players will get paid what the market will bear, and only outliers are flagged.
To me at least that seems pretty logical. It is hard to imagine a world where most all pay-for-play is effectively weeded out. This is not an easily solvable problem. (assuming you consider it a problem.)
To your last comment, I will just say that loyalty goes both ways. The minute that coaches start acting consistently loyal to programs, and programs start acting consistently loyal to players, then we can start holding athletes to that standard.