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.

Despite that deadline passing, at the NCAA Convention on January 14, CSC CEO Bryan Seeley urged schools to sign the participation agreement, while signaling some willingness to refine the document’s language in response to concerns from conferences and state officials. In his public comments, he thanked presidents from four power conference schools for their recent joint statement encouraging other member schools to sign as well. Seeley’s public comments, and the joint statement in support of the participation agreement signal a renewed push to create a binding framework for enforcement.

The Presidents’ Statement: A Public Push for Alignment

On Tuesday, January 13, the presidents of four major universities representing the Power Four Conferences issued a joint statement, articulating why other institutional leaders should sign the participation agreement despite its hard edges.

The presidents’ statement emphasized:

  • The participation agreement is “not perfect,” but it is “a necessary step forward.” The presidents explicitly acknowledged that the document has flaws but argue it “provides a visible mechanism to turn the House settlement from principle into practice and represents a meaningful step forward that the higher education community can collectively embrace.”
  • Accountability and enforceability are central. They emphasize that the agreement “adds an essential layer of accountability” by requiring universities to manage the actions of their employees and affiliates, and that it provides “clarity, consistency, and enforceability at a moment when the enterprise urgently needs all three.”
  • Stability comes from compliance, not just rules. The presidents also affirmed their buy-in to the system proposed by the CSC, stating that “[s]tability is not created by new rules alone, but by a willingness to live by them.”
  • Collective path forward. The statement describes the participation agreement as providing “a collective path forward for the future of college athletics,” emphasizing its role in supporting NIL reporting, revenue‑sharing compliance, monitoring, audits, and enforcement.

The message to peer institutions is clear: even if the agreement is uncomfortable — especially on litigation rights — it is, in these presidents’ view, a necessary trade‑off to bring order to a volatile environment.

Seeley’s Comments at the NCAA Convention

According to ESPN’s reporting on the NCAA Convention session, CSC CEO Bryan Seeley used his presentation to do three main things.

First, Seeley singled out the presidents’ joint statement seizing on its language regarding ensuring stability through compliance, using it to argue that collective buy-in and restraint from litigation are necessary for any enforcement regime to function. He also framed their support as an important leadership moment and urged others to follow suit.

Second, Seeley conveyed his sentiment that most schools want the stability the participation agreement offers, but some are hesitant to “stick their neck out” unless others in their conference do the same. He issued a resounding message: the time to take that risk is now.

Finally, Seeley acknowledged the publicly raised concerns about the participation agreement, calling it “fair feedback” and noted that the CSC is considering revisions to the agreement. At the same time, he cautioned that any revisions cannot undermine the enforcement power and deterrent effect of the agreement. In other words, there may be refinements at the margins, but the core structure — including strong penalties and centralized enforcement — is intended to stay intact.

Looking Ahead

The CSC’s participation agreement remains the central vehicle for translating the House settlement into day‑to‑day enforcement in college sports. While the original December 3, 2025, deadline has passed, recent developments show:

  • The CSC is not backing away from the agreement or its enforcement aspirations.
  • Institutional and conference‑level pressure to sign is increasing, now backed by public support from leaders in all four power conferences.
  • Some refinements to the text are on the table, but the CSC appears committed to preserving a robust enforcement framework — with real consequences for noncompliance and for schools that seek to litigate instead of working within the system.

As a result, universities, conferences, and stakeholders in the NIL ecosystem should treat this moment as a live inflection point. Seeley appears to welcome dialogue about revisions to some terms of the agreement, but not at the sacrifice of enforcement power. All parties want some level of certainty about the future of NIL rules and their enforcement. The signal from the NCAA Convention is that the CSC intends to renew its efforts to that end by pushing for signature of the participation agreement. Whether member institutions meaningfully join those efforts remains to be seen.