Without having seen an NIL contract, this is most likely the only structure that could plausibly work: down payment at the time of commitment with obligations to make physical appearances in Columbia that coincide with enrollment dates and milestones in the first year that would be impractical to fulfill if the player isn’t a student. If the player cannot or will not make those appearances, all or a portion of the down payment would be repaid.
Even this is still a flimsy foundation because as others have mentioned, anything tied to enrollment or on field performance is inducement and against current NIL rules. This would land the actual university in hot water. Regardless of what the legislature implemented, I don’t think Mizzou would want to see where that path leads.
This is also important. Two parties can put anything on paper, but some things just aren’t going to be enforceable.
And yes, nothing would stop a player from switching schools and using new NIL money to pay off any existing contractual obligations. It seems like Mizzou is banking on inertia; that once a player and their family is paid and settled in to the idea of attending in the winter, they won’t want to go through the hassle of changing schools and having to pay anything back.
Caveat that this is all spitballing and conjecture. Would be curious to look at these contracts to see how they’re structured.
EDIT: And this assumes that everyone is behaving in good faith. I’m sure these Missouri lawyers and boosters would never imply faulty legal conclusions or make official-sounding threats. If there is one thing you can say about lawyers, you can say that they don’t push frivolous arguments.