The College Sports Commission’s NIL Oversight Plan Is Stalling — Here’s What’s Actually at Stake

The College Sports Commission’s (CSC) proposed Participant Agreement continues to sit at the center of a mounting legal, political, and operational standoff. Although the CSC is steadily increasing its enforcement presence, including new inquiries at LSU and Nebraska, the legal authority behind those actions remains unsettled, raising fundamental questions about what the CSC can actually compel.

Background

I recently wrote about the settlement in the House v. NCAA case, where collegiate institutions can now directly compensate athletes through a revenue-sharing model, while third-party NIL deals valued above $600 must be submitted to NIL-Go, a centralized clearinghouse that evaluates whether agreements reflect a “valid business purpose” and “fair market value.” The CSC serves as the enforcement arm overseeing both NIL-Go and the revenue-sharing compliance framework.

Since its formation on April 14, 2025, the CSC has worked to establish legitimacy — but without the Participant Agreement fully executed, its authority remains only partially grounded.

What’s in the Participant Agreement?

Circulated on November 19, 2025, the Participant Agreement would significantly expand CSC’s authority. To activate, all 68 Power Four schools (ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12) must sign — a threshold that has not been met. The CSC also sent the agreement to the other Division I conferences for distribution to any school that wants to provide a revenue share to student-athletes.

The proposed agreement would:

• Formalize CSC Oversight, granting authority to investigate, audit, and enforce compliance across NIL transactions and revenue-sharing mechanisms.
• Expand Enforcement Tools, authorizing fines, NIL privileges suspensions, and other penalties beyond mere deal denials.
• Create a Unified Framework, standardizing how schools handle third-party NIL contracts and revenue-sharing reporting.

Why Schools Are Concerned

Broad Waivers and Litigation Restrictions

The Participant Agreement bars schools from challenging CSC authority, mandates arbitration, prohibits aiding third-party lawsuits, and even restricts institutions from lobbying for state or federal changes inconsistent with CSC rules. That scope has drawn widespread criticism.

The agreement further requires schools to “not support, advocate for or lobby for any change in federal, state, or local law that would alter or be inconsistent with [the school’s] obligations under this Agreement.” In addition, schools must use “best efforts” to get their coaches and boosters to cooperate with any CSC investigation.

State Law Conflicts

Several states have NIL statutes granting athletes broad rights. CSC rules that narrow those rights could lead to preemption disputes. Texas presented the strongest opposition: Texas Tech’s general counsel issued a detailed memo explaining why signing would violate state law. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton instructed all Texas P4 schools not to sign, calling the agreement an unlawful delegation of authority. Other AGs have since echoed similar concerns.

Antitrust Exposure

If CSC membership becomes mandatory for competitive viability, challengers may argue the arrangement is anti-competitive.

Contractual Liability

Schools signing the agreement may face breach-of-contract claims from athletes or third-party collectives if CSC enforcement invalidates existing NIL deals.

Due Process Concerns

CSC’s expanded enforcement powers — such as fines or suspensions — could trigger challenges under state laws governing administrative fairness.

Will It Spur Federal Legislation?

The SCORE Act, as previously reported, passed through two House committees but stalled and has not received a full House vote, with no Senate introduction.

The SAFE Act, a competing bill with different priorities, has been introduced in the Senate by Democrats.

Notably, Rep. Lori Trahan, a Democrat from Massachusetts, introduced the College Athletics Reform Act (CARA) in the House as an alternative to the SCORE Act. It would establish a federal NIL system, create an oversight commission, and eliminate the CSC model entirely.

New CSC Inquiries

The CSC has begun exerting its enforcement muscle despite lacking universal buy-in.

Louisiana State University (LSU) — First Public Inquiry. On January 15, LSU received a notice from CSC Head of Investigations Katie B. Medearis, advising the school of a probe into potentially unreported third-party NIL deals. While the timing coincided with intense football portal activity, reports confirm the inquiry was not football-related. CSC officials told The Athletic they have contacted “several schools” regarding similar concerns. By February 2, LSU announced the matter had been resolved with no penalties.

Nebraska — Second Known School Under Review. Soon after LSU, emails obtained by Front Office Sports confirmed that Nebraska athletes are also under investigation for failing to properly report NIL deals into NIL-Go. Nebraska later amended certain athlete submissions, citing confusion about timing and payments. As of publication, the status of Nebraska’s matter remains unresolved.

Taken together, these inquiries demonstrate that CSC enforcement is real and expanding — even as the formal legitimacy of its authority remains unresolved.

The Fundamental Paradox Moving into Spring 2026

The CSC’s situation can best be described as a structural contradiction:

• Enforcement is accelerating (LSU, Nebraska, and other schools contacted).
• Authority remains uncertain without full adoption of the Participant Agreement. It remains unsigned by an unknown but significant number of P4 schools.
• Political resistance remains strong in states where AGs view the agreement as unlawful overreach.
• Operational capacity is rising — NIL-Go throughput is high, staffing is expanding, and guidance continues to be updated.

Whether the CSC’s enforcement activity pushes schools toward signing — or pushes the entire model toward federal legislative replacement — remains the defining governance question for spring 2026 and beyond.

More NIL Coverage from SportsEpreneur

SportsEpreneur covers the legal, business, and policy shifts shaping the NIL landscape — from the House v. NCAA settlement to federal legislation, university strategy, and athlete representation. Continue reading:

• The New NIL Executive Order, Explained
• How NIL Is Reshaping March Madness 2026
• NIL Rules in 2026: What Athletes, Families, and Coaches Need to Know
• NIL Pros and Cons | How the College Game Is Changed Forever (2026 Update)
• The NIL Clearinghouse Is Here: What Athletes and Families Must Know About NIL GO

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the College Sports Commission (CSC)?

The College Sports Commission is the enforcement body created in April 2025 to oversee NIL compliance and revenue-sharing in college athletics following the House v. NCAA settlement. It oversees both NIL-Go (the third-party NIL clearinghouse) and the revenue-sharing compliance framework.

What is the CSC Participant Agreement?

The Participant Agreement is a contract circulated to Power Four schools in November 2025 that would formally grant the CSC authority to investigate, audit, and enforce NIL and revenue-sharing compliance. It requires all 68 Power Four schools to sign in order to take full effect — a threshold that has not yet been met.

Why are state attorneys general telling schools not to sign?

Several state AGs, most notably Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, have argued that the agreement unlawfully delegates authority, conflicts with state NIL statutes, and improperly restricts schools from lobbying for changes to state and federal law. Texas Tech’s general counsel issued a detailed memo explaining why signing would violate state law.

What is NIL-Go?

NIL-Go is the centralized clearinghouse created under the House v. NCAA settlement that evaluates third-party NIL deals valued above $600 to determine whether they reflect a “valid business purpose” and “fair market value.” The CSC oversees enforcement of NIL-Go decisions.

What’s the difference between the SCORE Act, the SAFE Act, and CARA?

The SCORE Act passed two House committees but stalled before a full vote and has no Senate companion. The SAFE Act is a competing Senate bill introduced by Democrats with different priorities. The College Athletics Reform Act (CARA), introduced by Rep. Lori Trahan, would establish a federal NIL system and eliminate the CSC model entirely. None have passed.

Which schools are currently under CSC investigation?

LSU was the first publicly known school to receive a CSC inquiry, in January 2026, which was resolved with no penalties by February. Nebraska is also under review for failing to properly report NIL deals into NIL-Go. CSC officials have confirmed they have contacted “several schools” regarding similar concerns.

About the Author

Bruce B. Siegal, Esq. is a sports and entertainment attorney at Greenspoon Marder LLP, where his practice focuses on NIL, collegiate intellectual property, trademark protection, and licensing. Before entering private practice, Bruce served for more than 31 years as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC), where he helped found CAPS — the trademark protection alliance with the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL. He is also an Adjunct Professor at Georgia Tech, teaching Sports Law and Public Policy with a focus on NIL rights.

Connect with Bruce: Greenspoon Marder profile | [email protected]

This article was originally published on February 20, 2026, by Sports Litigation Alert as “CSC’s NIL Oversight Plan Faces Roadblocks” and is republished on SportsEpreneur with the permission of the publisher and the author. The original article text is the property of Sports Litigation Alert, all rights reserved. Editorial framing, summary, and supplementary content added by SportsEpreneur.