First, I want to thank you for the well-thought out response that you took the time to put together. I enjoy reasoned discussions and am glad you are doing so.

Second, there is recourse for schools that mention to recruits that new recruits will get X when the sign with regards to NIL. If the business wants to side step that and saddle up to the players themselves then that's on them. But they also could have done that arrangement prior to NIL. And I dont see any UnderArmour schools dominating the college athletics scene.

You also have to remember that despite their fandom, UnderArmour has a lot of mouths to feed. How do you think Auburn (another UA school) is going to feel if UA tries to funnel kids to Maryland instead of Auburn?

Another consideration needing thought is that prior to arriving on campus, there is a lot of risk for both parties. For instance, lets say Business X says to Mr. Top 100 recruit, if you come to North Carolina, we will give you a business deal worth $20k per year. If the recruit accepts that deal, they will either need to be paid up front, or the recruit will assume the risk that the business will follow through on their promise. If there is money up front, the business is assuming a lot of risk that the athlete wont take that money and go elsewhere anyway for a similar deal. There cannot be a written contract with any language tying the inducements to the school, so again the business would assume the risk, plus have a contract in hand that they have to pay the recruit anyway even if he goes to another school.

Lastly, I wholeheartedly agree schools should decrease spending on frivolous things and pass the savings on to the athletes, but even if you did that if Luke Bussel, a walk-on, wanted to do a WR camp at his former high school he wouldnt be able to do so without NIL. And if Luke Bussel has 2 kids (I literally know nothing about the kid) and needs the money to feed his family, it is abhorrently wrong to deny him the ability to do so