On June 25, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the House plaintiffs’ motion to exclude multimedia rights companies (MMRs) and third-party sponsors from the definition of associated entities under the House settlement enforcement.[1] Class counsel filed a motion seeking clarity on the definition of “associated entities or individuals,” arguing:
Breaking News
College Sports Commission Updates Its Range of Compensation Analysis
On June 23, the College Sports Commission (CSC) issued a memorandum to all Division I Institutions and Conferences updating its NIL deal review, enforcement policy, and agent agreements.
The Great Divide Post-House: CSC Enforcement and the Power Four Conferences
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).
NCAA Division I Cabinet Approves Age-Based, Five-Year Eligibility Model
On June 23, 2026, the NCAA Division I Cabinet unanimously approved a historic overhaul of student-athlete eligibility rules, adopting an age-based model that grants student-athletes five full seasons of competition after entering college. The vote marks the most significant structural change to NCAA eligibility rules in decades and resolves — at least formally — a system that had become both legally vulnerable and administratively unworkable.
Brendan Sorsby Folds: Drops Lawsuit and Applies for NFL Supplemental Draft
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.
Brendan Sorsby Bet on Himself and Won: Now What?
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]
Eligibility After Alston: Why Pavia and Chambliss Won — and Aguilar Didn’t
By Michael S. Lowe & Derek Centola on
The name, image, and likeness (NIL) era has transformed more than compensation. It has reframed eligibility as an economic right — and that shift is driving a new wave of litigation against the NCAA.
Recent cases involving quarterbacks Diego Pavia, Trinidad Chambliss, and Joey Aguilar illustrate both the growing pressure on NCAA eligibility rules and the doctrinal fault lines that determine who obtains emergency relief — and who does not.
The Issue in Enforcing Student Athlete Revenue Sharing Contracts Resurfaces Amid Demond Williams Attempted Transfer
On January 6, 2025, University of Washington standout quarterback Demond Williams announced that he plans to enter the NCAA transfer portal just four days after reportedly signing a contract with Washington football for the 2026-27 season.[i] Williams’ deal with Washington has been reported to be for approximately $4 million, which is considered near the top of the market in terms of revenue sharing and NIL compensation for a student-athlete.[ii] It has been reported that Washington has no intention of releasing Williams from his contract and plans to pursue legal action against Williams. Washington officials have described the contract as a “legally binding revenue-sharing contract with the school.”[iii] Under the recent House settlement, schools are entitled to compensate student-athletes through a revenue-sharing pool that is capped at approximately $20.5 million.
Pruitt v. NCAA: A Bellwether Case on Due Process in NCAA and CSC Enforcement Models?
Posted in Legal Cases and Settlements
The preliminary injunction issued by the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Alabama blocking enforcement of the NCAA’s six-year show-cause penalty against former University of Tennessee head football coach Jeremy Pruitt represents more than another legal challenge to college sports governance. The ruling rests on due process grounds that carry implications extending beyond this individual case, reaching directly into both the NCAA’s existing enforcement apparatus and the College Sports Commission’s emerging investigative framework.
The Five-Year Rule Under Fire — Again: Ortega v. NCAA and the Latest Antitrust Challenge to Eligibility Limits
The NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule continues to face sustained antitrust scrutiny. The most recent challenge has been raised in the Southern District of Iowa by Cuban-born Division I wrestler Reineri Andreu Ortega in the case Ortega v. NCAA, No. 25-CV-00496. As with similar challenges, Ortega challenges the NCAA’s practice of starting an athlete’s eligibility clock before the athlete ever enrolls at an NCAA institution, arguing that the rule unlawfully restrains athlete labor markets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.