One Year After House Settlement, NIL Enforcement Is Still Muddled

One year ago, former MLB executive Bryan Seeley was in the midst of a new project. Sitting at “a small desk in my bedroom in Hoboken, New Jersey,” he launched the new college sports enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission.

“I was one person,” he told a group of reporters at the SEC spring meetings in Destin, Fla., last month. “My five-month-old baby was sleeping—or not sleeping as the case may be—in the bedroom next door.”

The CSC was launched alongside the House v. NCAA settlement, which allowed Division I schools to “revenue-share” with players for the first time, and set new restrictions on NIL (name, image, and likeness) deals. The NIL deal reporting platform, NIL Go, launched a year ago.

“We’ve got a staff of 20 very highly accomplished people. We have an office in Tyson’s Corner, Va. We have updated the NIL Go system with the help of Deloitte to make it much better for users. We have implemented rules, we have made a lot of decisions on first impression,” Seeley said. “We have made a ton of progress.” 

But after 12 months, the system continues to experience problems, from long wait times and questions over enforcement power to rule disputes and even a new lawsuit. Meanwhile, the “revenue-sharing cap” has not acted as a salary cap; the cost of a football or basketball roster is higher than ever. 

NIL Go Glitches

Since its inception, the CSC approved more than 26,500 deals worth more than $240 million combined, according to data provided to FOS. 

But long wait times still plague the approval system.

At first, deals procured through NIL collectives were stuck in limbo because of a rules dispute over whether they’d be allowed in the first place. While many collectives disbanded before the House settlement, others evolved into marketing agencies, acting as liaisons to get third-party deals for players. The CSC at first said no collective deals would be approved; then, after objections from House v. NCAA plaintiff attorneys, the CSC was instructed to reverse course.

But the lag times have continued. One power conference collective leader told FOS that while some deals submitted had been cleared in as quickly as 30 minutes, others submitted at the beginning of February were still waiting for approval four months later.

Another factor causing delays: The CSC is classifying a large number of deals as being offered through “associated entities,” a phrase it interprets to mean not just deals procured by collectives, but also by multimedia rightsholders and companies that sponsor athletic departments.

The volume of these deals has overwhelmed NIL Go, Seeley said earlier this year. “I don’t think the system was designed with this amount of ‘associated deals’ in mind,” he said.

Enforcement and Legal Challenges

Meanwhile, more than 1,000 deals worth $56 million have been rejected—a stat the CSC touted as proof that enforcement was working. The CSC’s early investigative processes do appear to have resulted in players complying with the rules. 

The CSC has opened several investigations, including at Nebraska, Oregon, and Texas A&M, as FOS reported, all of which have been resolved without punishment. The third-party arbitration appeals process, which allows an outside arbitrator to rule on whether specific deals should be approved or not, has also successfully completed two separate cases. 

But the CSC has not yet brought down the hammer on any program, leaving many to wonder if it will ever have the power to do so. 

Schools have yet to sign a “participant agreement,” which would have bound schools to the rules, the investigative and enforcement processes of the CSC, and prevented them from bringing litigation against the CSC over those rules (or encouraging players or outside parties to do so). 

In some cases, the rules themselves are in dispute. 

In April, attorneys Jeff Kessler and Steve Berman filed a motion asking a judge to prevent the CSC from treating MMR companies and third-party school sponsors as associated entities. On Wednesday, judge Nathanael Cousins—dubbed the “special master” tasked with overseeing the settlement—held a 90-minute hearing on the issue. Cousins may not issue a ruling for at least a week, if not more. 

Also this week, Stanford football player Charlie Mirer and USC football player Talanoa Ili filed a separate lawsuit outside the House settlement against the CSC, NCAA, and power conferences alleging that the NIL restrictions violate federal antitrust law as well as California’s state NIL law, which prohibits organizations from hindering players’ ability to earn NIL money. The lawsuit, a proposed class action, asked for monetary damages for four different classes of power conference athletes on full scholarships. (The Big Ten and Big 12 declined to comment in response to the lawsuit; the CSC, NCAA, SEC and ACC did not immediately respond.)

“We asked the question, do we want to be governed? And I think the answer was yes,” Texas A&M athletic director Trev Alberts said last month. “We need the CSC to be successful. We want them to be successful.”

Chaotic Results 

The existing complications have dire consequences.

The NIL Go wait times are causing players to lose out on opportunities for deals that have a specific time window. As a result, players, agents, and their families are putting pressure on collectives and schools to somehow get players money before deals have been approved—and potentially break the rules. Plus, the aforementioned collective operator said major brands are now considering getting out of the NIL market entirely due to the logistical difficulties of NIL Go. 

Meanwhile, there’s no salary cap. The revenue-sharing cap is the floor rather than the ceiling, with top college football programs spending $40 million on their rosters for this upcoming season—even though the athletic department-wide cap is set at about $21 million.