The College Sports Commission (CSC) has circulated a 10-page University Participation Agreement that would dramatically reshape NIL and direct-payment enforcement. The biggest shift: schools would waive their right to challenge CSC rulings in court and funnel all disputes into the arbitration system created by the House settlement. The agreement only takes effect if every school signs.

But as reporting makes clear, the process has been anything but collaborative — especially for schools outside the Power 4.

Key Provisions of the Participation Agreement

The agreement asks schools to:

• Give up their right to sue. Signatory schools agree not to challenge CSC punishments in courts and appeal any enforcement action through the arbitration process agreed on in the House settlement.
• Avoid helping anyone else sue. Schools signing the membership agreement must also agree not to encourage or assist third parties, including state attorneys general (AG), in filing lawsuits against the CSC.
• Face major penalties for indirect pushback. Violating the non-assistance provision triggers at least one year of lost conference revenue and a one-year postseason ban for any affected sport.
• State Law Conflicts. Many requirements — including arbitration — apply only where they do not conflict with state law. Several states bar public institutions from entering binding arbitration. Others have passed NIL laws that may clash with CSC policies. Seeley acknowledges that federal preemption would be needed for true nationwide uniformity.
• Cooperation Mandates. The membership agreement also includes language that would require schools to use “best efforts” to ensure coaches and boosters cooperate. Non-cooperation by either can trigger school-level penalties. If a school does not cooperate, the CSC may assume non-cooperating parties are withholding harmful information and consider that when deciding violations.

CSC Chief Executive Bryan Seeley frames these rules as necessary to maintain a uniform national NIL system shielded from state laws or loopholes that advantage particular schools or athletes.

“Voluntary” — But Only on Paper

Despite being labeled “voluntary,” the agreement was drafted with minimal — if any — input from schools outside the Power 4. According to reporting, schools had “very little involvement” in shaping the rules, and the rapid two-week turnaround was viewed as “hasty.”

Effectively, it seems fair to say that the CSC is forcing the agreement onto every institution that opted into the House settlement, not offering a genuine choice.

Power Conference Schools Raise Concerns

Moreover, recent reporting suggests that at least two power conference schools are considering not signing. The general counsel for one of those schools, Texas Tech University, issued a memo concluding that there were numerous provisions of the participation agreement that the university should not agree to.

Texas Tech’s general counsel’s analysis raises fundamental questions about the legality, practicality, and fairness of the agreement, including:

• Overreach in Enforcement. The memo states that multiple sections are an “overreach on enforcement,” granting the CSC disproportionate power, including the records retention and monitoring and notification requirements, and that the dispute resolution procedure lacks clarity and would require inclusion in coach contracts.
• Due Process Concerns. The memo notes due process concerns with the participation agreement’s provisions allowing for penalties if the CSC makes the decision, in its sole discretion, that an institution has not cooperated and requiring institutions to suspend a school official if the CSC decides the official did not cooperate.
• State-Law Barriers. Texas law prohibits binding arbitration for state institutions, making parts of the agreement legally impossible to follow. The memo also notes as unacceptable the fact that limiting each entity’s compliance by state law will result in the participation agreement being unevenly applied to member institutions.
• Punishing Schools for the AG’s Actions. The memo states that if the Texas AG files suit, the university could lose all conference revenue and postseason eligibility. The memo argues this would penalize the school for lawful actions taken by the state to protect its citizens.

UPDATE: State AGs Weigh In

Texas AG Ken Paxton’s recent letters to Texas Power 4 universities and state AGs across the U.S. raise the stakes around the participation agreement and may significantly delay its eventual adoption. In the letters, Paxton contends that the agreement would improperly extend CSC’s authority far beyond its relationship with participating schools and insulate the organization from legal challenge in ways that place universities at risk.

Paxton called on all Texas universities that are members of the Power 4 conferences to decline to sign the participation agreement, citing many of the issues raised in the Texas Tech memo, including Texas constitutional prohibitions on creating state debt, bans on binding arbitration, risks tied to mandatory certifications by university officials, and CSC-mandated revisions to third-party contracts. He warned that these terms could expose Texas schools to legal jeopardy, compliance conflicts, and expanded litigation risk from employees.

In his separate letter to the AGs, he urged them to review the participation agreement and advise their universities to decline to sign, emphasizing that the agreement’s restrictions on litigation, cooperation, and policymaking threaten basic state authority and create untenable obligations for public institutions.

Paxton characterizes the proposal as a “power grab” that “must be stopped,” pledging to support any Texas universities seeking changes to the participation agreement and urging his counterparts across the country to work with their universities to oppose the approach.

What’s Next?

The CSC has asked schools to return executed membership agreements by early December. But it remains to be seen if the participation agreement will be adopted as currently drafted after the concerns raised by the Texas Tech memo and the lack of input from outside the power conferences. The Texas AG’s call-to-action adds a new obstacle to the adoption of the participation agreement, at least in its current form.

If the participation agreement goes into effect, state-law conflicts may limit uniform application. To the extent that some state laws benefit certain schools, the possibility exists that other states could adopt new laws to level the playing field. Federal legislation, which has long been a goal of the NCAA (and now the CSC) has remained elusive, although efforts may intensify to get Congress to act to enact legislation that would preempt state laws.