If you follow college sports in any capacity, you understand that the landscape has been rapidly evolving over the last decade. All the changes from transfer portal to NIL have led to the creation of the College Sports Commission (CSC), which is a new entity specifically created to enforce the terms of the House v. NCAA settlement. The CSC is in charge of NIL Go (where NIL deals of $600 or more in value are reported and evaluated), and the College Athlete Payment System (a management platform designed to oversee revenue sharing payments to student-athletes).[1]
The contractual agreement that has been in the headlines lately is called the University Participation Agreement. This agreement was proposed to all Power Four conference schools to bring uniformity and order to decisions that are supposed to pertain to the CSC per the House Settlement.[2]
The University Participation Agreement strives to accomplish a couple of major goals: Having schools waive their right to challenge CSC decisions in court (enforcing the House Settlement’s arbitration requirement), binding schools to comply with the CSC’s investigations and enforcement mechanisms, make mandatory annual audits and oversight tied into revenue and NIL compliance, and preventing schools from avoiding the CSC’s authority.[3]
In order to move forward and become effective, all Power Four conference schools must sign the agreement, which did not occur by the original December deadline. Pushback from major institutions has fueled the delay, causing CSC’s CEO Bryan Seeley to hint at possible language revisions when pleading for schools to sign at the January 2026 NCAA convention.[4]
Institutions are rightfully hesitant to sign off on this agreement, viewing it as unfavorable to them or risky considering the lack of legal authority or clear protections. For example, Texas Tech University’s general legal counsel advised the school not to sign off on the agreement.[5]
In addition to skepticism from institutions and their legal teams, state officials have also pushed back on the requirements and waiver of litigation rights. Both the Texas and Tennessee Attorney Generals have expressed concern about this agreement, with their statements being cosigned by AGs from New Jersey, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The main concern seems to be overreach by the CSC in trying to enforce rules without obvious authority so long as all of the schools have not signed.[6]
Despite the struggle to get this agreement into motion, the CSC continues to go about its business in vetting NIL deals and investigating potential violations. This involves issuing notices to schools about unreported third-party deals, which schools are required to report to NIL Go if the value is over $600.[7]
For now, the CSC’s authority to enforce these rules remains unsettled if the University Participation Agreement continues to go unsigned, which means we will continue to see the evolving NCAA landscape look like the wild West. The outcome of these discussions will shape the future regulation of NIL deals and athlete payments.
[1]Jonathan D. Wohlwend, Enforcing After House: The College Sports Commission and the Future of NIL Regulation, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP (Jan. 21, 2026).
[2]Amanda Christovich, College Sports Enforcement Up in the Air as Participation Agreement Delayed, Front Office Sports (Dec. 2025).
[3]Christopher Brolley et al., Update: CSC Moves to Close Post-House Enforcement Gaps Through Participation Agreement, JD Supra (2025).
[4]Amanda Christovich, College Sports Enforcement Up in the Air as Participation Agreement Delayed, Front Office Sports (Dec. 2025).
[5]General Counsel Advises Texas Tech Not to Sign CSC Participation Agreement, Sports Business Journal (Nov. 23, 2025).
[6]Amanda Christovich, College Sports Enforcement Up in the Air as Participation Agreement Delayed, Front Office Sports (Dec. 2025).
[7]Pei Pei Cheng de Castro, College Sports Commission Issues Notices Regarding Third-Party NIL Reporting Violations, Barclay Damon LLP (2026).
Leave a Reply