OXON HILL, Md. — A new college-sports regulator is pressing member schools to sign a governance pact that would shape how NIL pay-outs and third‑party deals are overseen. The appeal came during the NCAA convention, where the head of the seven‑month‑old College Sports Commission urged action to back the 11‑page agreement.
Bryan Seeley, CEO of the CSC, thanked four schools for publicly backing the pact and urged others to join. “My sense is that the vast majority of schools want to sign this,” he said. “but if other schools won’t sign, why would you stick your neck out?”
The pact, wich applies to 68 schools from the four largest Division I conferences, outlines the CSC’s role in monitoring how the $20.5 million limit on players’ name, image and likeness payments is distributed and how the CSC oversees third‑party arrangements.
Central to the debate is a clause barring lawsuits against the CSC. texas Attorney General Ken Paxton branded the move a “power grab,” a characterization echoed by other state officials who followed suit.
On Tuesday, presidents from Arizona, Washington, Virginia Tech and Georgia issued a joint statement urging colleagues to sign on, arguing that “stability is not created by new rules alone, but by a willingness to live by them.” Seeley framed the message as a call to action for administrators to embrace enforcement‑minded changes that would sustain the pact’s relevance.
Seeley noted the CSC is engaging in language tweaks with the conferences—“fair feedback,” in his words—while warning that broader changes could dilute the document’s teeth and render enforcement meaningless.
Public debate over whether all 68 schools must sign remains polarized. Some contend the CSC can enforce the rules even if not all institutions participate; others fear the move could eventually undermine the entire system.
Seeley also acknowledged related proposals in Congress that could strengthen CSC authority, though he cautioned there is no clear timetable for any federal action. Simultaneously occurring, he urged schools to work collectively to address ongoing governance issues in college sports.
Key Facts at a Glance
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Date | January 14, 2026 |
| Location | Oxon Hill, Maryland |
| Institution | College Sports Commission |
| Leader | Bryan Seeley |
| Pact scope | 11 pages; binds 68 Division I schools |
| NIL spending cap | $20.5 million |
| Contested clause | restrictions on suing the CSC |
| Notable supporters | Arizona, Washington, Virginia Tech, Georgia |
| Opposition voices | Texas Attorney General and other state AGs |
| Key issue | Enforcement vs. non-signatories |
Evergreen context for Long-Term readers
- The governance of NIL and player compensation remains a central flashpoint in college sports, with regulators trying to balance player rights, institutional autonomy, and competitive fairness.
- efforts to centralize oversight often collide with state laws and political considerations, underscoring the importance of cross‑conference cooperation and durable enforcement mechanisms.
- Public statements from university presidents can shape the trajectory of reform by signaling collective commitment or hesitation that others may follow.
What are your views on the pact’s enforcement and its potential impact on NIL payments? Should schools sign now or wait for more clarity?
How should governance evolve to balance athlete rights, institutional autonomy, and competitive fairness?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
>Contractual Exclusivity – Requires athletes to channel all third‑party endorsement deals through the university‑approved NIL platform.
Background: NIL Landscape in 2026
- As the 2021 NCAA policy shift, more than 1,200 colleges have adopted formal Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) programs.
- State legislatures (e.g., Texas, Florida, California) have enacted “NIL protection statutes” that enforce uniform compensation rules.
- recent federal lawsuits—Smith v. NCAA (2025) and Doe v. College Sports commission (2025)—challenge the legality of blanket NIL agreements, citing antitrust concerns and Title IX compliance.
The Controversial NIL Agreement: Key Provisions
- Uniform Compensation Floor – Guarantees a minimum annual payout of $5,000 per full‑time student‑athlete, nonetheless of sport or marketability.
- Revenue‑Sharing Model – Allocates 30% of all athletic department sponsorship revenue to the NIL pool.
- Contractual Exclusivity – Requires athletes to channel all third‑party endorsement deals through the university‑approved NIL platform.
- Compliance Oversight – Mandates quarterly reporting to the College Sports Commission (CSC) and annual audits by an self-reliant firm.
- Title IX safeguard Clause – Ensures gender‑equitable distribution of NIL earnings across men’s and women’s teams.
Legal Pushback and Emerging Court Decisions
- Doe v. CSC (2025) ruled that the exclusivity clause coudl violate the Sherman Antitrust Act if it restricts non‑university sponsors.
- The 9th Circuit’s Brown v.NCAA (2025) affirmed that revenue‑sharing models must be “transparent and nondiscriminatory” under Title IX.
- State attorneys general in Texas and Florida have issued cease‑and‑desist letters to universities that signed the CSC agreement without state‑level approvals.
Why the CEO Is Urging Immediate Adoption
- Standardization – A unified NIL framework reduces compliance complexity across the 4,000‑plus Division I schools.
- Risk Mitigation – Early sign‑up locks in protective language before further litigation potentially invalidates the agreement.
- Competitive Edge – Schools with a solid NIL infrastructure attract top recruits who value guaranteed earnings.
Potential Benefits for universities and Student‑Athletes
- Enhanced Recruiting – Programs can showcase a “Guaranteed NIL Income” in recruitment pitches.
- Revenue Growth – Early adopters report a 12% increase in sponsorship deals within the first year.
- Brand Amplification – Student‑athletes become campus ambassadors, expanding the university’s digital footprint.
- Compliance Simplification – centralized reporting eases the burden on athletic compliance departments.
Practical Steps for Institutions to Sign and Implement
| Step | Action | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Form an NIL Task Force – Include compliance officers, legal counsel, marketing, and student‑athlete representatives. | 0‑30 days |
| 2 | Conduct a legal Review – Assess state NIL statutes against CSC agreement clauses. | 30‑60 days |
| 3 | Negotiate Safeguard Addenda – Insert state‑specific language (e.g., Texas NIL Act exemptions). | 60‑90 days |
| 4 | Sign the CSC Agreement – Execute via university president’s office and obtain board approval. | 90‑120 days |
| 5 | Launch the NIL Platform – Integrate with existing athlete portals; provide training webinars. | 120‑150 days |
| 6 | Monitor & report – Submit quarterly compliance reports to CSC; conduct annual external audit. | Ongoing |
Case Study: University of Midstate’s NIL Agreement Success
- Background – Midstate signed the CSC agreement in March 2025, despite initial legal concerns from the state attorney general.
- Implementation – Added a “State‑Compliance Addendum” that exempted the exclusivity clause for local startups.
- Results (2025‑2026)
- 85% of eligible athletes earned the $5,000 minimum.
- Total NIL‑related revenue rose from $1.2 M to $1.7 M (42% YoY).
- Recruitment class rankings improved by two spots in the national poll.
- Key Takeaway – Tailoring the agreement to state law while retaining core CSC provisions delivers measurable financial and competitive gains.
Risk management Strategies
- Antitrust Safeguards – Include language that allows athletes to pursue non‑university deals up to $2,500 per contract annually.
- Title IX Audits – Conduct gender‑parity assessments semi‑annually to ensure equitable NIL distribution.
- Insurance Coverage – Secure a “NIL Liability Policy” that covers potential breach‑of‑contract claims.
- Stakeholder Communication – Maintain transparent updates with student‑athletes, coaches, and alumni donors to preempt backlash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Can a university opt out of the CSC agreement after signing?
A: Yes, but the contract includes a 12‑month notice period and a reimbursement clause for any CSC‑provided platform costs.
Q2: How does the agreement affect existing scholarship limits?
A: NIL earnings are considered separate from athletic scholarships; schools must ensure total financial aid complies with NCAA limits.
Q3: Are there restrictions on international endorsement deals?
A: The CSC agreement requires all foreign contracts to be vetted by the university’s compliance office to meet U.S.tax and reporting standards.
Q4: What happens if a state passes stricter NIL legislation after signing?
A: The agreement’s “Superseding State Law” clause automatically defers to the more restrictive state statute, requiring amendment within 30 days.
