With the formation of the new College Sports Commission, things are starting to get intriguing. There is a new commission headed up by Bryan Seeley, a former United States Federal Prosecutor whose job, among other things, is to seek to make sure college sport NIL deals are legitimate and reasonable, fall within the rules and guidelines, and otherwise are within comparable player-athlete deals to ensure the integrity of college sports going forward.

This is not a future possibility; this is current reality in effect July 1st, 2025. More on this law below.

Here is a quick overview from Google AI of this very important sports law case.

As you can see, this settlement creates a whole new system, which has resulted in the creation of the College Sports Commission

The College Sports Commission will oversee all new NIL deals and must approve them in order for the athlete to move forward. Revenue sharing starts 7/1/2. If an NIL deal is rejected (not approved), the athlete can (1) revise and resubmit; (2) cancel/refund; or (3) arbitrate. If the athlete side skirts the process, they risk loss of eligibility. All new NIL deals must be reported within 5 days of signing the endorsement contract with the third party. All existing NIL deals must be reported by 6/30/25.

Here are the key definitions from the NILGO glossary:

The compliance system is headed up by Deloitte, who has apparently created a proprietary software program to run analysis to see if an NIL deal is legitimate, fair and reasonable (and in compliance with the rules) or whether it is merely “pay for play”—a way for wealthy boosters to lure top athletes into their program. Their software will apparently find a way to determine what a fair deal is in a certain geography for a certain type of player (e.g., a center on a football team in the Southwest region).

Some of the factors that stand out are what a similarly situated athlete might be expected to be paid for promoting the goods and services of the third party and whether or not they are really selling goods or services (a bona fide business deal).

This is supposed to be a resource tool as well for collectives/schools to use as guidance when negotiating deals in an effort to limit unconscionable compensation packages that resemble “pay for play” (like the last several years have been) versus a legitimate business transaction.

Once again, I will resort to Google AI to provide guidance on the 12 factors the Deloitte software tool will analyze to ferret out pay-per-play deals vs. legitimate and fair sales of goods/services:

Per the CSC website:

After submission, NIL Go analyzes the information provided by the student-athlete to determine if, based on the information provided, the third-party NIL deal is:

1. Cleared—The deal meets necessary requirements and can proceed.
2. Not Cleared—The deal fails to meet necessary requirements. The student-athlete has three options to consider (see below):
3. Flagged for Additional Review—A deal may be flagged for additional review due to concerns regarding payor identity, compensation amount, or contract terms. In these cases, the College Sports Commission will conduct an additional review and provide guidance to the student-athlete.

The CSC website discusses rejection options

1. Revise the deal and resubmit: Student-athletes have the option to work with the payor to renegotiate the deal and resubmit it to NIL Go.
2. Cancel the deal: Student-athletes have the option to cancel the deal and refund any money already received.
3. Appeal to neutral arbitration: Student-athletes can appeal through a neutral arbitration process to obtain a neutral review of the decision.

If the student-athlete continues with the deal as submitted, they may face enforcement consequences, which could include loss of eligibility.

The NIL deals that get denied will be reviewed by a private arbitrator or arbitration panel, and there are extremely limited circumstances to review the arbitrator’s decision.

The settlement creates a new neutral arbitration system through which student-athletes and schools may challenge the College Sports Commission enforcement actions. The parties to the House v. NCAA settlement are still finalizing the arbitration process and procedures and expect to complete this work by mid-July.

Should student-athletes wish to challenge a decision by the College Sports Commission before those procedures are finalized, there are two options available:

1. Wait until arbitration procedures are finalized. Student-athletes may choose to wait until the new arbitration procedures are finalized and the pool of arbitrators has been selected to proceed before a pool arbitrator and under the new arbitration procedures.

or

1. Proceed immediately with a neutral arbitrator. Student-athletes may proceed immediately with a neutral arbitrator selected by a third-party arbitration service called JAMS under the procedures stated in Article 6, Section 2 of the settlement agreement.

To initiate an arbitration under option two, student-athletes must complete the JAMS Notice of Arbitration form available here and submit it to the College Sports Commission at the following email address: arbitration@collegesportscommission.org.

Additional information and finalized arbitration rules will be posted here once available.

It is important to note that the NCAA’s enforcement department (not the College Sports Commission) remains responsible for enforcement of rules not created in connection with the settlement.

Having an experienced business litigation and sports lawyer represent you makes good sense.

Per the college sports commission website:

All current members of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC are participating in the new revenue sharing model overseen by the College Sports Commission. Division I schools from other conferences can choose to “opt in” to revenue sharing and must formally do so by June 30, 2025, at which point a full list of participating schools will be made public.

Each year, schools outside of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC will have the option to opt in to or out of revenue sharing. These schools must notify the NCAA if they will opt in to (or opt out of) revenue sharing for the upcoming academic year by March 1 of each year. In order to opt out, an institution must have fulfilled any relevant obligations to student-athletes and all revenue sharing – or incremental increases in scholarship – must cease.

It is important to note that regardless of whether an institution opts in to revenue sharing, all Division I student-athletes will be subject to the new rules and requirements around third-party NIL deals.

Here is a non-exclusive list of services we provide to college sports talent.

• Sports nickname trademarks
• Sports contracts representation
• NIL deal advice, counsel and appeals (arbitration)
• Eligibility disputes
• Cheating allegations
• Transfer portal legal issues
• Scholarship issues
• Athlete website legal issues

If your legal issue involves high school, Olympic, paralympic or other sports issues, contact us at (877) 276-5084 to discuss.

The NIL Go submission and review requirements, as well as the appeals procedure in the event that an agreement is rejected, should be understood by student athletes and college programs alike. Avoiding errors also requires building relationships with lawyers, compliance specialists, and other trustworthy advisors who are knowledgeable about the system and the compliance concerns affecting NIL deals.

There are additional laws, rules, and regulations that apply, and there are laws in various states that may or may not have an impact on a NIL agreement. In addition to offering athletes assistance and training, educational institutions can keep an eye on results to look for any discrepancies in the effects on student populations. Both institutions and athletes should be aware of the intricate legal environment surrounding this new field.

Link