Joel Klatt explains why he supports Arkansas demanding NIL buyout from Madden Iamaleava

QB Madden Iamaleava is the second of two college quarterbacks in his family that has, this spring, went through a dispute regarding NIL. He too, if it were up to Joel Klatt, would be losing out on some of that revenue with how it went with his transfer from Arkansas.

Klatt gave his opinion on the Razorbacks’ demand for buyout money, originally paid out as his name, image, and likeness by their collective, from Iamaleava during his show on Monday. He said he’s for it for the ‘Hogs as what they paid for wasn’t fulfilled by the four-star freshman arrival past spring practice.

“First, on Madden. So, Madden is now going to be in a dispute with Arkansas and Arkansas is actually hiring – I believe, what is it, Tom (Mars), I believe that’s his name – to go after basically, like, a buyout or, or a payback from some of the NIL money that he received after going to Arkansas just for a few months and then transferring and coming back home, really, to Southern California to go to UCLA,” Klatt explained.

“People have asked my reaction on that. I say, absolutely. Absolutely. Go after that money. At that point? If the players want the benefits of being able to be paid and getting NIL dollars then the teams should be able to claw them back. There’s not a doubt in my mind.”

Once QB Nico Iamaleava transferred from Tennessee to UCLA, Madden Iamaleava, who had just gotten done with spring practice in Fayetteville, entered the portal too with all intentions of transferring to Los Angeles to join his brother after originally being committed to the Bruins in high school. The next day, though, AD Hunter Yurachek and Arkansas EDGE, per On3’s Pete Nakos, began working for a buyout from a couple of those who transferred out in the spring window, namely Iamaleava. According to Nakos, the Razorbacks are looking for about $200,000 back from their former quarterback.

However, Klatt does think there could be a catch for Arkansas in trying to do this in the legal system. It’d be simpler if we were already in the revenue-sharing model but, since the sport isn’t yet, he thinks the Razorbacks will have to make an argument that essentially says that money Iamaleava received was technically pay-for-play, especially since they paid for no actual play at all from him.

“This will be way easier once we get into the rev share. You see, if it’s actually NIL, the legality of getting this back is tough because you’re basically going to have to say it was pay-for-play, which it is and I know that we all are, are aware of that. And you’re going to have to say like, well, he didn’t play so we need his pay back. Fair. And, again, I’m, I’m on Arkansas’ side on this point but you see the sticking point because it’s technically NIL,” Klatt said. “And, yes, did you just give it to him without really requiring him to do much from his name, image, and likeness from your collective? Yes. So, it wasn’t pure revenue share just yet. But, once it is revenue share, now we can have a contract with buyouts and a little bit more rigidity to? Maybe some of this movement that is so free-wheeling that we see with, with some of these players.”

It’ll be worth keeping up with how this all plays out, or is paid out, for Arkansas as the second school in the Southeastern Conference dealing with the aftermath of an Iamaleava. Klatt is in favor of them doing it, though, as “common sense” considering how short a time he spent in the program.

“Do I think Arkansas should do this? Yes. Do I think that they should get some of this money back? Absolutely,” said Klatt. “This is common sense. Let’s play in the common sense game.”