In this episode of Highway to NIL, Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys Cal Stein and Chris Brolley discuss the recent Q&A document released by the NCAA and conferences, focusing on the guidance providing clues for how enforcement may look under the College Sports Commission in the post-House settlement landscape. Among other topics, they examine the role of the College Sports Commission in investigating NIL rule violations, the arbitration process for contested penalties, and enforcement issues related to high school and transfer athletes. The episode also covers compliance with roster limits, the benefits cap, and scrutiny of third-party NIL deals involving associated entities.

The newly formed College Sports Commission has named its first two executive leaders as it begins formal operations in the wake of the House v. NCAA settlement. Bryan Seeley[1] will serve as the commission’s inaugural chief executive officer and Jonathan Bramlette[2] will serve as its director of operations…

A week after the approval of the $2.5 billion class action settlement of House v. NCAA (settlement), the NCAA and defendant conferences (i.e., Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and Southeastern Conference) released a question and answer document (Q&A Guidance) providing guidance on the settlement’s implementation. This post covers insights from some of the Q&A Guidance for Division I membership to consider on the eve of radical collegiate athletic change.

The wait is over. On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the $2.576 billion class action settlement in House v. NCAA.

In this episode of Highway to NIL, Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys Mike Lowe, Lu Reyes, and Philip Nickerson examine the status of the House settlement. They focus on how the settlement might impact roster limits for current student-athletes and discuss the introduction of the NCAA’s new name, image, and likeness (NIL) enforcement division.

A three-page memo distributed to schools provides further clarity regarding Deloitte’s role as the approved clearinghouse for name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals, as outlined in the House settlement and guidance documents. Deloitte’s NIL clearinghouse and review platform will be known as “NIL Go.” We briefly addressed the role of the NIL clearinghouse in a previous blog post.

On May 7, the parties in House v. NCAA submitted supplemental briefs in response to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s April 23 order[1] requiring both parties to address her concerns over the issue of roster limits. These briefs (i) revised the terms of the proposed settlement agreement and (ii) detailed how the revisions would ensure “that members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class will not be harmed by the immediate implementation of the roster limits provisions.”[2]

Recently, the University of Kentucky took an interesting step in the context of collegiate athletics by converting its athletic department into a limited liability company (LLC), named Champions Blue LLC. This structure makes Kentucky the first university in the U.S. to restructure its athletic department in this manner. The move reflects a growing awareness among universities that the traditional model of collegiate sports may no longer be the most financially or legally sustainable model in the face of mounting pressures from name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals, antitrust litigation, and evolving NCAA regulations.

On Monday, a U.S. district court judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit brought by former Kansas basketball player Mario Chalmers and 15 other former college basketball players. The plaintiffs all played college basketball before June 15, 2016 — the proposed start date for the House settlement pending approval in the Northern District of California — meaning they would not be beneficiaries of that settlement. Accordingly, the former players sued the NCAA and the conferences in which their respective institutions competed, alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust law by forcing the players to agree to amateurism rules and forgo compensation for use of their NIL while the NCAA and defendant conferences simultaneously generated revenue from use of the players’ NIL.

On April 25, U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi ordered the NCAA not to enforce its Five-Year Rule against Rutgers University cornerback Jett Elad.[1] The impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements on the new world of Division I sports underpinned two key findings in the opinion: (1) the NCAA’s junior college rule (JUCO Rule) is subject to federal antitrust laws; and, (2) Elad had a likelihood of success on the merits because Division I student-athletes have a greater ability to benefit from NIL agreements compared to non-Division I athletes.