About the only thing we know about this case is that there wasn't a clear written agreement that spelled out what both sides will do. What will the collective or booster pay, and what kind of appearances, promotions, etc. will the player deliver. If it was clear and written, this would last all of about 15 minutes.
I'm a bit skeptical that it's as simple as a collective going back on a clear agreement, even a verbal. That would be a great way for a collective and individuals there to get sued, fired, and kill UNLV's chances of recruiting again.
When you're dealing with unwritten or poorly written agreements, both sides are going to hear what they want to hear and tell the other side what they want to hear.
My favorite take in all this is people saying things like "I know X player at this position in P5 is getting offers for $Y."
When you have everyone involved in the public discussions - players, their agents, the collectives and even the coaches trying to get more money from donors with zero negative ramifications for exaggerating, telling half-truths, using one-off situations as an indicator of an actual market, or flat-out making **** up, that absolutely is going to rampant.
There would be some benefits for all involved to get contracts out there, make it a standard, and have some transparency. But don't be surprised when there isn't exactly some massive push by players and their agents to make this all in writing and transparent. Situations like this would likely be avoided, but the most effective tool for bargaining that players have now is the fact that at least during the negotiation stage these are all verbals with tons of uncertainty in market values.
