- in United States
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations, Banking & Credit and Basic Industries industries
The college football transfer portal has become the closest thing to free agency in college sports — and recent guidance from the College Sports Commission (CSC) signals that regulators are now actively policing the Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) marketplace built in the wake of the House settlement.
In early January 2026, the CSC issued a formal reminder that all third-party NIL agreements exceeding $600 must be reported through the NIL Go platform and must reflect legitimate "activation" of a student-athlete's name, image, and likeness — not simply guaranteed payments untethered from promotional services. The CSC further confirmed that investigations are already underway into unreported or non-compliant NIL deals, particularly those connected to transfer portal recruiting.
At the same time, reports of Louisiana State University's pursuit of high-profile transfer quarterback Brendan Sorsby offered a rare inside look at how NIL packages are now driving roster movement. Programs are increasingly brokering multi-million-dollar NIL proposals with third-party collectives and sponsorship partners to attract elite portal talent.
Together, these developments highlight a central tension emerging post-House: while the settlement sought to standardize NIL oversight and curb inducement-based recruiting, the economic reality of college athletics continues to push toward open-market competition for athletes' services. Further complicating this issue are the practical limitations the CSC faces in attempting to regulate athletes' relationships with entities that were not parties to the House settlement and are not subject to NCAA rules.
According to a report released in January, the CSC has rejected nearly $15 million in NIL agreements, which represents approximately 10% of the total value of deals analyzed since the imposition of the disclosure requirement in July 2025. The primary reasons for denial identified by the CSC in its report are the lack of a valid business purpose, attempts to "warehouse" players' NIL rights for future use and attempts to compensate players that were not "commensurate with similarly situated individuals." Overall, 52% of the deals submitted for approval via NIL Go were resolved within 24 hours, and 73% of deals were evaluated within seven days after submission of all of the required information. 56% of athletes who have had deals approved by the CSC play football or men's basketball.
Under the terms of the House settlement, athletes who disagree with the CSC's initial compliance determination for NIL deals have the opportunity to arbitrate the dispute. However, the CSC's expanding enforcement role raises key questions from an antitrust perspective. Increased centralized review of NIL contracts, particularly restrictions tied to "valid business purpose," activation requirements, and reporting mandates, may invite scrutiny if they are perceived to suppress athlete compensation, restrict deal structures, or favor institutional partners over independent market participants.
While the House settlement created a compliance framework intended to bring order to NIL, its real-world application is now colliding with market forces that reward bidding, mobility, and individualized valuation of athlete brands. For universities, collectives, sponsors, and athletes alike, the message is clear: NIL activity is no longer operating in a lightly regulated space, with the CSC issuing a very public warning of potential enforcement actions for non-compliant NIL deals. That said, aggressive oversight may itself become the next frontier of antitrust litigation, particularly with the acceleration of player movement and the steady rise in the value of revenue sharing and NIL agreements.
As issues related to compensation, oversight and enforcement in college sports continue to collide in the post-House era, Buchanan's NIL and Antitrust Practice Groups offer guidance to navigate these challenges and help clients remain competitive and compliant.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
