The name, image, and likeness (NIL) era has transformed more than compensation. It has reframed eligibility as an economic right — and that shift is driving a new wave of litigation against the NCAA.

Recent cases involving quarterbacks Diego Pavia, Trinidad Chambliss, and Joey Aguilar illustrate both the growing pressure on NCAA eligibility rules and the doctrinal fault lines that determine who obtains emergency relief — and who does not.

In this episode of Highway to NIL, Troutman Pepper Locke attorney Cal Stein is joined by colleagues Mike Lowe, Philip Nickerson, George Pla, and Derek Centola for a “desk drawer” tour through some of the most consequential recent developments in NIL and college sports. The group unpacks a wave of NIL contract disputes involving high-value athletes, the escalating legal fights over eligibility and the five-year rule, and the emerging governance battles around the College Sports Commission’s (CSC) participation agreement.

Just weeks ago, we reported that the College Sports Commission (CSC) would be ramping up investigations into unreported third-party NIL agreements. The CSC has since made good on that promise. On January 30, The Athletic reported that Louisiana State University’s (LSU) athletic director, Verge Ausberry, received an email from the CSC’s head of investigations, Katie B. Medearis, informing the institution that they were under investigation regarding potential failure to report multiple third-party NIL deals.  

In this episode of Highway to NIL, Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys Cal Stein and Chris Brolley are joined by 42U CEO and former Division I student-athlete Stephen Bienko to discuss how NIL is reshaping college sports from the inside out. Stephen explains how 42U helps athletes understand their identity, decision-making, and long-term goals rather than chasing one-off NIL deals. The conversation explores how Power Four and mid-major programs are building NIL infrastructures, why women’s and Olympic sports may offer the greatest growth opportunity, how student-athlete expectations have evolved since the early days of NIL, and how regulatory and compliance uncertainty is affecting administrators and athletes alike.

As a follow-up to NIL Revolution’s November 25, 2025, coverage, this post updates where things stand with the College Sports Commission’s (CSC) participation agreement more than a month after the original December 3, 2025, signing deadline.

Key Takeaway:

After decades of minimal federal activity, the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act (SPARTA) is drawing renewed attention. A January 2026 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) inquiry into sports agent practices may signal a meaningful shift in enforcement — particularly in the NIL era.

On January 8, the College Sports Commission (CSC) issued guidance in direct response to a recent news report from Yahoo Sports that examined college football student-athletes being offered third-party NIL deals that violate the terms of the House settlement — making promises of third-party NIL money that does not yet exist — designed to induce transfers or retain players.

On January 6, 2025, University of Washington standout quarterback Demond Williams announced that he plans to enter the NCAA transfer portal just four days after reportedly signing a contract with Washington football for the 2026-27 season.[i] Williams’ deal with Washington has been reported to be for approximately $4 million, which is considered near the top of the market in terms of revenue sharing and NIL compensation for a student-athlete.[ii] It has been reported that Washington has no intention of releasing Williams from his contract and plans to pursue legal action against Williams. Washington officials have described the contract as a “legally binding revenue-sharing contract with the school.”[iii] Under the recent House settlement, schools are entitled to compensate student-athletes through a revenue-sharing pool that is capped at approximately $20.5 million.

The preliminary injunction issued by the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Alabama blocking enforcement of the NCAA’s six-year show-cause penalty against former University of Tennessee head football coach Jeremy Pruitt represents more than another legal challenge to college sports governance. The ruling rests on due process grounds that carry implications extending beyond this individual case, reaching directly into both the NCAA’s existing enforcement apparatus and the College Sports Commission’s emerging investigative framework.