*Gabrielle Prager is a 2026 summer associate with Troutman Pepper Locke and not admitted to practice law in any jurisdiction.

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).

After being ruled eligible to play for Texas Tech this upcoming season, Brendan Sorsby is forgoing his college career and applying to enter the NFL’s Supplemental Draft. We previously wrote about the Sorsby saga and his reinstatement. However, a week after a judge ruled that Sorsby would be eligible to continue playing football for Texas Tech, the Big 12 filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas[1] seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to punish Sorsby for sports betting.

On June 8, 2026, District Court of Lubbock County Judge Ken Curry ruled in favor of Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby after the NCAA initially ruled him ineligible to play collegiate football. In granting the temporary injunction, Judge Curry held that Sorsby, who notably entered a gambling rehabilitation facility following the NCAA’s ruling, “has demonstrated he will suffer a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury,” allowing him to continue his college football career after admitting to betting, including on his games.[1]

Editor’s Note: This post was updated on June 9, 2026, to reflect the NCAA’s updated guidance issued on June 5, 2026, in response to recommendations from stakeholders in men’s ice hockey, men’s basketball, and the U.S. national service academies.

During its May meeting, the Division I Cabinet proposed and discussed an age-based eligibility model (i.e., the 5-in-5 proposal) that would give student-athletes five years of eligibility, beginning either the academic year after turning 19 or upon graduation from high school, whichever happens first.