Nebraska NIL Case Could Set Major Precedent

The aftermath of the House settlement has led us to the world of the College Sports Commission (CSC) and NIL Go, a clearinghouse for reviewing NIL deals between third parties and college athletes. This system has been put in place as an enforcement mechanism, although where the authority comes from is not very clear. 

The intentions are fairly admirable, as NIL Go uses an algorithm created by Deloitte to determine fair market value based on range-of-compensation, according to Ross Dellenger. According to the CSC, NIL Go is supposed to review all third-party deals over $600 to ensure fair market value and a valid business purpose. 

The NIL Go clearinghouse recently became the focus of a major lawsuit where 18 University of Nebraska football players have retained legal counsel to challenge their rejected NIL deals. This group of players are contesting rejected NIL deals that, according to Yahoo Sports, have totaled over $1 million combined. 

This dispute is significant because it is the first serious challenge to NIL Go, the system created in the wake of the House settlement approval in 2025. As is the case with most untouched legal issues, this case will likely be precedent setting as the college sports industry continues to adjust and evolve. According to Ross Dellenger, the case is moving towards arbitration, and the aftermath of the decision could impact both player eligibility and compensation. 

As has not been the case in many of the 711 deals denied by the CSC (totaling $29.3 million), we have been given a reason behind the rejection of the 18 Nebraska football deals. According to Ross Dellenger via X and Yahoo Sports, the CSC rejected the Nebraska deals because they deemed them to be “warehousing” NIL rights. This can be defined as when an entity purchases an athlete’s NIL rights for future opportunities without activating or delivering on the deal immediately. An eye-opener for the CSC here was the fact that the rejected deals reportedly involved Playfly, which is Nebraska’s multimedia rights partner. According to CSC CEO Bryan Seeley, the commission has been on high alert for NIL deals that appear to be “manufactured” by schools or affiliated entities rather than created in the market organically, which explains why these deals caught their attention. 

If the arbitrator upholds the initial decision by the CSC, the Nebraska football players will be required to either decline the NIL deal or return any money that they already received as part of the deal, Ross Dellenger explains. If college athletes decide to keep or accept money from a deal that has been rejected, they can be declared ineligible to compete. Arbitration decisions like this, and future cases, could determine not only millions of dollars in compensation, but also player eligibility. 

Now, states throughout the country have enacted their own NIL laws at this point in the evolving NCAA saga. Nebraska has a provision that prevents the penalization of athletes for participating in NIL activities. Something to keep an eye on would be whether or not the Nebraska Attorney General decides to intervene based on this law if the football players wind up penalized. 

Confusion and delay seem to be the name of the game so far when it comes to how the CSC is handling investigations into NIL deals, which has drawn the attention of attorneys due to reports of delays in approvals and rejected deals. According to Ross Dellenger, some NIL deals have taken over 90 days to clear through the NIL Go system. This is significant because if lawyers notice the CSC/NIL Go violating terms of the settlement, they could report the issues to the court overseeing the settlement. 

CSC CEO Bryan Seeley believes that, in situations like this, the NIL marketplace has not developed organically. The focus has been on the “manufactured” deals mentioned prior. According to Seeley and an NIL flow graphic posted by Ross Dellenger on X, deals that show characteristics of entities associated with institutions, like Playfly with the University of Nebraska, must be reviewed with greater scrutiny and more frequent rejections during the review process. As far as the delays in review, the CSC points to rapid deal volume and increased complexity amongst the deals. 

This case could be the first major test of the legality of the enforcement mechanism post-House settlement. Until the University Participation Agreement, which was proposed to all Power Four institutions and requires unanimous agreement, is revised and agreed upon, the authority of the CSC is in question.