Uniformity Or Uncertainty? The College Sports Commission’s Effort To Implement University Participation Standards

Key Takeaways:

• The CSC’s University Participation Agreement aims to create uniform NIL enforcement but faces major resistance. While designed to establish consistency and predictability post–House v. NCAA, the Participation Agreement’s broad enforcement powers and litigation waivers have raised serious legal and political concerns among universities and state officials.
• Lack of universal adoption undermines the Agreement’s effectiveness. Because participation is voluntary, hesitation from key institutions and objections from state attorneys general threaten the Agreement’s ability to function as a true nationwide standard – and may even create competitive imbalances.
• The CSC is enforcing NIL compliance even without widespread buy‑in. In the absence of signed Participation Agreements, the CSC has shifted toward investigations and inquiry letters, signaling it intends to exert influence through enforcement activity despite ongoing institutional pushback.

The expansion of name, image and likeness (NIL) rights has created substantial challenges for universities nationwide. In November 2025, the College Sports Commission (CSC) unveiled what it hoped would be a comprehensive response: the University Participation Agreement (also, the “Agreement”). Intended as a standardized enforcement framework, the Participation Agreement sought to bring long‑needed stability and predictability to a college sports landscape that lacked both in recent years. But rather than resolving existing problems, the Participation Agreement attracted limited institutional support and highlighted the fundamental obstacles to achieving stability in college athletics, including concerns over legal exposure and lack of university buy-in. With March Madness behind us, the college basketball transfer window closing and the college football season on the horizon, renewed attention to the Participation Agreement is likely – making now an opportune moment to take a closer look at the CSC and its proposed solution.

What is the College Sports Commission?

The CSC is an independent enforcement body established by the five conferences formerly known as the “Power Five” to oversee the implementation and enforcement of NIL rules in the post–House v. NCAA era (read more about the House settlement here).¹ In addition to administering athlete revenue‑sharing compliance, the CSC operates “NIL Go,” a centralized reporting and review platform that evaluates third‑party NIL agreements valued at $600 or more for Division I student‑athletes.² Through these functions, the CSC is intended to serve as the primary enforcement mechanism for NIL and athlete compensation rules adopted by participating conferences. That mandate, however, exposed significant gaps in enforcement ability and institutional compliance – gaps the CSC sought to address through its proposed Participation Agreement.

What is included in the Participation Agreement?

In the simplest terms, the Participation Agreement is the mechanism the CSC designed to transform the House settlement rules into enforceable obligations. The proposed 11‑page binding Agreement would grant the CSC direct authority over NIL and revenue‑sharing compliance and require participating schools to accept a series of significant commitments:

• Waiver of litigation rights: The Agreement requires participating schools to arbitrate disputes arising from CSC enforcement actions and relinquish their right to pursue court challenges.

• Broad enforcement powers: Participating schools agree the CSC may investigate violations, conduct audits and impose penalties such as postseason bans, revenue withholdings and fines.

• Mandatory cooperation and non-assistance: Participating schools must use “best efforts” to ensure athletes, coaches, boosters and affiliated entities (including NIL collectives) comply with CSC rules, with schools remaining liable even for noncooperation by those affiliates. Participating schools are also prohibited from encouraging, supporting or assisting third parties – including state attorneys general – in bringing lawsuits against the CSC.

While the Participation Agreement set out an ambitious enforcement framework on paper, its reception among colleges quickly revealed the practical and political limits of that approach.

Why is the Participation Agreement Necessary?

Even before the CSC’s formation, it was clear that achieving consistent enforcement of NIL rules in a rapidly evolving legal landscape would be difficult. Litigation in the NIL space was not only anticipated but inevitable – and the creation of the CSC did little to slow that trend. What follows is a sampling of several high‑profile NIL‑related lawsuits filed since the CSC’s creation:

• University of Wisconsin v. University of Miami: In December 2024, the University of Wisconsin declined to enter football player Xavier Lucas into the transfer portal, citing the breach of a recently signed NIL agreement. Lucas subsequently unenrolled from Wisconsin and enrolled at the University of Miami, where he played the entire 2025-2026 college football season. Wisconsin ultimately sued Miami for tortious interference in June 2025, and that litigation remains ongoing.³

• Damon Wilson II v. University of Georgia: The University of Georgia and former Georgia Bulldog Damon Wilson II are currently litigating issues stemming from Wilson’s transfer to the University of Missouri. Wilson transferred in January 2025, shortly after signing a 14‑month NIL agreement with Georgia, prompting the university to seek arbitration and pursue damages of $390,000 consistent with the agreement’s buyout provision. Wilson countersued Georgia in Missouri state court, alleging that the university interfered with his ability to enter the transfer portal and unlawfully penalized him for transferring. The parties remain in litigation over these issues.⁴

• University of Cincinnati v. Sorsby: In February 2026, the University of Cincinnati filed suit against its former starting quarterback, Brendan Sorsby. After the conclusion of the 2025 season, Sorsby announced that he would leave the Bearcats and transfer to Texas Tech University. Sorsby’s NIL agreement with Cincinnati was set to run through the end of the 2026 football season and included a $1 million buyout payable within 30 days of his transfer. Sorsby’s representatives have not yet disputed the applicability of the buyout clause, but they argue that Cincinnati’s effort to enforce it “sends the wrong message” to other student‑athletes. The dispute remains ongoing.⁵

Changes to the NCAA’s NIL rules have also spurred litigation by student‑athletes seeking to extend their collegiate eligibility (read more about this litigation here). Against the backdrop of increasingly frequent and complex NIL‑related disputes – and inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions – the CSC unveiled the Participation Agreement in November 2025.

How was the Participation Agreement Received?

For universities, the Participation Agreement presented not just an enforcement framework but a high‑stakes decision with legal and operational consequences. Institutions expressed immediate skepticism about its terms, with several schools raising concerns that key provisions – including the critical litigation waiver and mandatory arbitration requirement – could conflict with applicable state laws. Those concerns were echoed publicly by state attorneys general in jurisdictions such as Texas, Tennessee and West Virginia.⁶

The CSC implemented an ambitious deadline for all schools from the Power Four conferences to sign the Participation Agreement, but that deadline passed without securing universal adoption. Undeterred, the CSC continued to press for institutional buy‑in. At the January 2026 NCAA Convention, CSC CEO Bryan Seeley reiterated the importance of the Participation Agreement and emphasized that meaningful enforcement would require participation from all schools.⁷

Even with its potential drawbacks, the Participation Agreement garnered support from several institutions with prominent and successful athletics programs. In January 2026, the presidents of the University of Arizona, the University of Georgia, Virginia Tech and the University of Washington issued a joint statement urging schools to sign on to the framework.⁸ While the statement acknowledged the Participation Agreement’s flaws, it emphasized that meaningful enforceability, accountability and uniformity in college athletics are unattainable without collective restraint – including limits on litigation.

The divided response from institutions leaves unresolved questions about whether – and how – the Participation Agreement can move forward.

What happens next?

A defining feature of the Participation Agreement is its voluntary nature, meaning it must be uniformly adopted by participating schools to be effective. Without universal adoption, schools that decline to sign could gain a competitive advantage in an already competitive recruiting environment. Acknowledging this risk – and the resistance from both institutions and several state attorneys general – Seeley suggested at the January 2026 NCAA Convention that revisions to the Agreement’s language remained possible as he continued urging schools to sign. Ultimately, the fate of the Participation Agreement will turn on whether the CSC can strike a workable balance between meaningful enforcement and institutional buy‑in as college athletics continues to adapt to the rapidly evolving NIL landscape.

While Seeley and his quickly expanding team of investigators would prefer that schools sign Participation Agreements, the CSC has continued its effort to enforce the House settlement’s reporting requirements by issuing inquiry letters to athletic departments. In January 2026, the CSC made its first public inquiries into third-party NIL deals that allegedly went unreported at LSU and Nebraska – signaling a shift in the CSC’s enforcement strategy in the absence of signed Participation Agreements. According to a statement from LSU in February, the inquiry into non-reporting at the university was resolved without any disciplinary action being taken.⁹ LSU also expressed appreciation for “the CSC’s prompt review and resolution.” Nebraska has not publicly commented on the CSC’s inquiry, but the university responded to the CSC by voluntarily providing additional details on the athlete deals in question.¹⁰

These initial investigations suggest that some schools may opt to cooperate with the CSC even in the absence of signed Participation Agreements. However, as NIL investigations become more complex and the prospect of disciplinary action becomes a reality, schools will likely continue to push back on the CSC’s enforcement authority.