Overview
The latest development in the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) landscape reveals yet another unresolved question: while the College Sports Commission (CSC) was created to enforce NIL rules, the universities themselves have not yet officially agreed to give the CSC that power. With little clarity at this point on the CSC's authority, the future of NIL enforcement in the wake of the House v. NCAA settlement (the "House settlement") is very much in question.
Background
On January 9, 2026, the CSC circulated a "Third‑Party NIL Rules Reminder" to NCAA athletics directors (the "CSC Memo"), announcing that it would move forward with investigations into potential NIL violations, including alleged promises of third‑party NIL deals designed to induce student‑athletes to transfer to or stay at particular schools. The CSC warned that unreported or improperly structured deals could leave athletes exposed to ineligibility to compete if those deals "likely do not comport with the rules arising from the House settlement."1
The University Participant Agreement
In the aftermath of the House settlement, the CSC drafted and distributed in November 2025 the "University Participant Agreement" (the "Agreement"), which is intended to bind schools to the CSC's oversight and give legal force to its enforcement decisions.2 However, despite months of effort, the CSC still lacks signatures from enough universities to implement the Agreement. Reactions to the proposed Agreement were mixed: while a number of university presidents have spoken out in favor of the Agreement,3 it drew sharp criticism from multiple state attorneys general who objected to provisions they described as punitive and overreaching.4 For example, certain attorneys general took issue with the CSC's purported ability "to strip a school of all conference revenue and impose postseason bans if any State, State official, student-athlete, ‘associated entity,' or other third party brings litigation ‘related in any way' to CSC rules, investigations, or enforcement."5
Ultimately, the CSC's self-imposed December 3, 2025, deadline for all 68 universities from the four largest Division I conferences (the "Conferences") to sign on to the Agreement passed without its ratification. Yet the CSC is pressing ahead anyway. In its January 9 Memo, the CSC stated that "investigations into unreported third‑party NIL deals are progressing" and that some schools "should expect to hear from the CSC" shortly.6
This leaves the CSC attempting to enforce rules in a landscape where its legal authority remains unsettled. As discussed in a prior Steptoe alert, under the House Settlement, the CSC serves as the "Designated Reporting Entity," responsible for reviewing NIL deals. It has cleared more than 17,000 deals and rejected more than 500 through its NIL Go platform.7
However, the universities themselves still have not agreed to be bound by CSC enforcement decisions. Without the Agreement in place, any investigative findings, deal rejections, or compliance directives lack clear, binding effect. That gap is particularly significant as the CSC highlights emerging concerns about:
- Deals lacking a "valid business purpose;"
- "Unreported" or pre‑payment NIL deals; and
- "Warehousing" of NIL rights, where athletes are offered money without any specified activations of their name, image, or likeness.8
The CSC's public messaging signals frustration with practices by universities, athletes, and third parties (such as agents) that the commission views as inconsistent with the House Settlement, even as universities remain reluctant to ratify its authority.
Looking Ahead
The CSC's decision to push forward despite this unresolved legal footing sets the stage for the next phase of NIL governance. Possible developments might include:
- Challenges from universities arguing the CSC lacks authority to investigate or impose determinations absent contractual consent. The entire motivation for creating a University Participant Agreement is to insulate the CSC's authority from legal challenges. Absent a ratified Agreement, the CSC lacks such protection and is its investigative and enforcement decisions will likely be contested.
- Renewed pressure on the CSC and the Conferences to revise—or rethink—the Participant Agreement. Eventual signatories may be particularly keen on limiting the liability they would potentially face due to the actions of "independent third parties" like NIL collectives, marketers, multimedia-rights holders, and boosters, who under the Agreement's current form would be considered "associated entities" and whose conduct could be attributed to universities "regardless of an institution's ability to supervise these actors."9
- More friction with state attorneys general, who have objected to the CSC's enforcement posture. State AGs have been particularly hostile towards portions of the Agreement that they claim "penalize institutions for cooperating with law enforcement" which in their eyes is "an unacceptable interference with the attorney-client relationship between state AGs and state universities."10
To the extent that the CSC presses forward with investigations and enforcement as it has said that it will, expect State AGs to defend universities in their states that become the targets of what the State AGs believe to be the CSC's "overreach."11 - Heightened scrutiny of NIL collectives and third‑party sponsors, especially in areas like warehousing or inducement‑based offers. As universities' multimedia-rights partners become increasingly involved in procuring corporate sponsorship deals for student-athletes, rather than for universities (as has typically happened in the past), the CSC has warned that "making promises of third-party NIL money now and figuring out how to honor those promises later" will trigger CSC scrutiny and may "leave student-athletes vulnerable to deals not being cleared, lead to promises not being able to be kept, and eligibility being placed at risk."12
Conclusion
For now, one central question remains unanswered: Can the CSC enforce NIL rules when the schools have not agreed to it doing so?
What is clear is that the CSC intends to try—pursuing investigations and issuing warnings even without the support of the major collegiate athletic conferences. How institutions respond, and whether the CSC's actions withstand pushback, will shape the next chapter of NIL regulation and enforcement.
1 College Sports Commission (@theCSCommission), X (Jan. 9, 2026, at 6:08PM), https://x.com/theCSCommission/status/2009764244716433754?s=20 (the "Rules Reminder").
2 College Sports Commission, "University Participant Agreement," (Nov. 19, 2025), https://www.scribd.com/document/951583495/CSC-University-Participant-Agreement (last visited Jan. 21, 2026) (the "Agreement").
3 ESPN, "Regulatory body urges colleges to agree to pay-for-play rules," (Jan. 14, 2026), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-seeking-information-20-universities-sports-agents-compliance-law-aimed-protecting-student (last visited Jan. 19, 2026) (noting that the presidents of Arizona, Washington, Virginia Tech, and Georgia had released a statement urging their colleagues to sign on to the Agreement).
4 See, e.g., Letter from Ken Paxton Letter, Attorney General of Texas, to Texas Universities (Nov. 25, 2025) (the "Paxton Letter") (available at https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-paxton-sends-letters-universities-and-state-ags-oppose-unlawful-csc-agreement-would); Letter from Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee Attorney General, et al., to Bryan Seeley, Chief Executive Officer of the College Sports Commission, et al. (December 3, 2025) (the "State AG Letter") (available at https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2025/12/3/pr25-58.html).
5 State AG Letter at 2 (discussing paragraph 28 of the Agreement).
6 See generally Rules Reminder.
7 College Sports Commission, "NIL Deal Flow Report" (Jan. 12, 2026) (available at https://www.collegesportscommission.org/news).
8 See Rules Reminder; NIL Deal Flow Report.
9 State AG Letter at 5.
10 Id. at 3.
11 Id. at 2.
12 See generally Rules Reminder.
