Since 2021, the rules governing college athletics, and particularly name, image, and likeness (NIL), have been shaped less by a single national policy than by a patchwork of state laws, NCAA rule changes, and court decisions. In the absence of congressional action, courts have effectively set the boundaries of permissible compensation, transfers, eligibility, and enforcement, often one challenge at a time.

The Wisne July 31 Orders

On July 8, 2026, a group of Division I athletes led by Brock Wisne sued the NCAA, challenging the implementation of the new five-year eligibility model. The plaintiffs alleged that the NCAA unlawfully excluded athletes who enrolled in 2022, competed in four seasons, and were denied a fifth season solely because they had already exhausted four seasons under the prior framework. The preliminary-injunction motion proceeded primarily under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, although the complaint also pleaded contract and declaratory-judgment theories that were not central to the injunction ruling.

On July 2, we reported on Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins’ ruling that multimedia rights companies (MMRs) and third-party brand sponsors are not categorically excluded from the definition of “associated entities” under the House settlement. On August 4, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken affirmed that ruling, upholding the College Sports Commission’s (CSC) authority to review NIL deals between NCAA athletes and MMRs or third-party brand sponsors.

On July 29, 2026, Nebraska’s athletic director announced that the College Sports Commission (CSC) had approved a restructured set of NIL deals for the same 18 Nebraska football players whose deals were arbitrated, totaling $7.5 million — the same dollar amount as the agreements the CSC previously denied. As discussed in our prior post, “The Great Divide Post-House: CSC Enforcement and the Power Four Conferences,” Arbitrator Andrew M. Strongin issued a binding May 11, 2026, ruling upholding the CSC’s denial of $7.5 million in NIL deals structured through Nebraska’s exclusive multimedia rights (MMR) partner.

On July 27, 2026, Stanford University football players took a notable step in the continuing transformation of college athletics. The team became the first college football program to form a current, player-led chapter of the College Football Players Association (CFBPA), an organization advocating for player representation, collective bargaining, and improved protections for college football players. Stanford’s announcement is significant not because a union is imminent, but because it suggests that NIL, revenue sharing, and collective bargaining may now be moving toward the same legal and commercial conversation.

On June 23, 2026, the NCAA revised its Division I eligibility rules by adopting a new age-based model commonly referred to as “5-in-5.” We previously wrote about this new rule here. Under the new rule, student-athletes may compete in five seasons of their college sport, with eligibility beginning when they enroll in college and running no later than the academic year in which they turn 19. The change marks a significant departure from the NCAA’s prior framework, which generally allowed four seasons of competition within a five-year eligibility window. The NCAA, however, has not applied the new rule retroactively to all student-athletes, leaving one group in a difficult position: 2022 high school graduates who already exhausted, or are close to exhausting, their eligibility under the old system. Those athletes argue they were uniquely disadvantaged by the overlap of COVID-era eligibility waivers, evolving NIL opportunities, and the NCAA’s decision to extend benefits to other classes of student-athletes while excluding them.

On June 25, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the House plaintiffs’ motion to exclude multimedia rights companies (MMRs) and third-party sponsors from the definition of associated entities under the House settlement enforcement.[1] Class counsel filed a motion seeking clarity on the definition of “associated entities or individuals,” arguing:

On June 23, the College Sports Commission (CSC) issued a memorandum to all Division I Institutions and Conferences updating its NIL deal review, enforcement policy, and agent agreements.

Following the district court’s approval of the House settlement in 2025, in which Division I schools that opted into the settlement were allowed to directly compensate student-athletes, schools began looking for ways to remain competitive in recruiting and retention. Some have turned to third-party multimedia rights companies (MMRs) to structure NIL opportunities outside the revenue-sharing amount. That strategy has now placed MMRs at the center of a larger enforcement dispute: whether these entities should be treated as “associated entities” subject to heightened review by the College Sports Commission (CSC).

On June 23, 2026, the NCAA Division I Cabinet unanimously approved a historic overhaul of student-athlete eligibility rules, adopting an age-based model that grants student-athletes five full seasons of competition after entering college. The vote marks the most significant structural change to NCAA eligibility rules in decades and resolves — at least formally — a system that had become both legally vulnerable and administratively unworkable.