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).
The CSC, with the backing of a neutral arbitrator, has now answered that question in the affirmative after rejecting more than $7.5 million in NIL deals arranged by the University of Nebraska (Nebraska) through its exclusive MMR partner in January and February 2026.
The CSC found that Nebraska’s MMR was an associated entity and that the deals amounted to “warehousing” — i.e., acquiring NIL rights as inventory to be activated later for unidentified sponsors selling unidentified goods. The student-athletes challenged the decision in arbitration and lost.[1] Specifically, the arbitrator found the following:[2]
- Nebraska’s exclusive MMR partner had employees embedded within the athletic department, and the contracts were clearly designed to function as a pass-through for university payments to players exceeding the revenue-sharing amount;
- The deals between the student-athletes and Nebraska’s MMR lacked a valid business purpose as the promotion of goods and services was not offered to the general public for profit; and
- The deals violated the rule against “warehousing.”
After the CSC rejected the deals — but before the arbitrator issued the final ruling — class counsel to the House settlement appeared before Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 27 and asked the court to declare that (1) MMRs are not associated entities, and (2) school-facilitated third-party NIL deals do not become associated-entity deals merely because of the school’s involvement.[3]
Class counsel argued that Nebraska’s MMR is not an “associated entity” and therefore is not subject to the CSC’s heightened scrutiny.[4] According to class counsel, the CSC violated the House settlement by enforcing its provisions against a nonassociated entity because associated entities are subject to different rules designed to ensure that NIL payments serve a valid business purpose and are not used as loopholes to bypass the settlement’s revenue-sharing cap.[5]
While the proceedings are not yet public, the proliferation and use of MMRs throughout college athletics will likely lead to future litigation. The $20.5 million revenue-sharing amount is intended to equalize schools’ relative recruiting power.[6] If the district court does not view Nebraska’s exclusive MMR as an associated entity, the concern is twofold: (1) whether the CSC arbitration is binding or enforceable; and (2) whether MMRs could become effectively immunized from scrutiny in a way that conflicts with the terms of the House settlement.
The arbitration decision is a prime example of the CSC’s recent efforts to tighten enforcement of NIL deals. Recent CSC scrutiny has blocked or delayed hundreds of millions of dollars in third-party NIL commitments, particularly for student-athletes at schools that have used legal loopholes to exceed the revenue-sharing limit. As a result, the status of many of these NIL deals remains unresolved while reviews are completed.[7]
These developments have prompted mixed reactions from Power Four conferences, which remain divided over whether to raise the revenue-sharing amount or press for softer CSC enforcement.[8] Certain members within the Southeastern Conference have voiced frustration with the current NIL and revenue-sharing framework, arguing that the CSC has been inconsistent and selective in enforcing the House settlement.[9]
The CSC has taken a different view. Its CEO, Bryan Seeley, has emphasized that the CSC is applying rules that the schools and conferences agreed to, while noting that tens of thousands of deals have already been approved and that many delays are tied to noncompliant or incomplete submissions.[10]
Despite Seeley’s comments, Southeastern Conference and Big Ten leaders have contributed to emerging discussions about whether those conferences should consider breaking away from the CSC and developing their own enforcement model.[11]
The Big 12, by contrast, has signaled full support for the CSC and is moving toward becoming the first Power Four conference in which every member institution signs the CSC participation agreement.[12] If signed by all 68 Power Four schools, the agreement would waive each member institution’s right to sue the CSC and would expressly authorize centralized enforcement of House settlement limits and third-party NIL rules.[13] The divide highlights a broader split among major conferences between those willing to operate under a strengthened CSC framework and those actively considering “Plan B” alternatives built around conference-level governance and enforcement.[14]
These “Plan B” discussions are unfolding against the backdrop of the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act, which would establish a national NIL standard, effectively lock in the post-House revenue-sharing model, and grant the NCAA and CSC limited antitrust protection to enforce eligibility, transfer, and compensation rules.[15]
Whether that legislation passes will help determine whether the CSC-centered model remains the primary enforcement mechanism or whether conferences move more decisively toward their own enforcement regimes in shaping the next phase of the NIL era.
[1] Student-Athlete NIL Deals, College Sports Commission (last visited June 3, 2026), https://www.collegesportscommission.org/nil.
[2] Id.
[3] Marcello, supra note 1.
[4] Glossary, College Sports Commission (last visited June 16, 2026), https://www.collegesportscommission.org/glossary/.
[5] Michael McCann, The NCAA House Settlement Is Suddenly Unsettling, Sportico (May 11, 2026, 7:55 AM), https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2026/ncaa-house-settlement-multimedia-rights-nil-dispute-1234892391/.
[6] Dan Murphy, CSC Wins NIL Arbitration Case Brought by Nebraska Football Players, ESPN (May 11, 2026, 8:03 PM), https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/48745201/college-sports-salary-cap-rules-upheld-arbitration-case-brought-nebraska-football-players.
[7] Ross Dellenger, With potential split from CSC on the table, college sports leaders struggling to find solution to money problems – ‘The Big Ten and SEC should break away and do their own deal’, Yahoo Sports (May 18, 2026), https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/with-potential-split-from-csc-on-the-table-college-sports-leaders-struggling-to-find-solutions-to-money-problems–the-big-ten-and-sec-should-break-away-and-do-their-own-deal-144449817.html.
[8] Id.
[9] Graham Coffey, “Pretty Close to Anarchy” – Georgia President Jere Morehead Calls on SEC Leaders to Leave This Week’s Meetings With Week’s Meetings With Plan to Start Working on Implementation of Rules, Dawgs Central (May 26, 2026), https://www.dawgscentral.com/news/dc/pretty-close-to-anarchy-georgia-president-jere-morehead-calls-on-sec-leaders-to-leave-this-weeks-meetings-with-plan-to-start-working-on-implementation-of-rules-r613/#ipsLayout__main.
[10] Associated Press, CEO of NIL enforcement reminds schools: These are your rules, ESPN (May 21, 2026, 4:16 PM), https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/48837934/ceo-nil-enforcement-reminds-schools-your-rules.
[11] Ross Dellenger, Could the SEC actually govern itself? With college sports in dire straits, more options are on the table, Yahoo Sports (May 28, 2026), https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/could-the-sec-actually-govern-itself-with-college-sports-in-dire-straits-more-options-are-on-the-table-221334217.html.
[12] Stephen Hawkins, Big 12 Conference ready to give College Sports Commission full support, Chattanooga Times Free Press (May 29, 2026), https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2026/may/29/big-12-ready-to-give-college-sports-commission/.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Brandon Marcello, Bipartisan ‘Protect College Sports Act’ proposes salary cap for players, antitrust protection, NIL regulation, CBS Sports (May 27, 2026, 12:59 PM), https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-sports-ted-cruz-maria-cantwell-bill-salary-cap-antitrust-protection-ncaa/.