The Legal Future of College Athletics after the House Settlement: Part 2

As the College Sports Commission works to implement the House settlement, 2026 is already shaping up to be a pivotal year. In part one of this series, we examined the House settlement and the contested authority of the College Sports Commission. In this follow-up piece, we turn to the more immediate questions: how that architecture is being enforced, challenged and tested.

Where the College Sports Commission Stands in 2026

The College Sports Commission has yet to obtain enough signatures from universities to implement the agreement. This leaves it in a position where it is trying to enforce rules when its actual legal authority remains unclear.

Nevertheless, the College Sports Commission is pressing forward. In a January 9, 2026 memorandum, it noted that it had “received information that suggested that football student-athletes were being presented with third-party NIL deals that likely do not comport with the rules arising from the House settlement, in order to induce them to transfer or remain at a particular school.” In its January 9th memo, the College Sports Commission also noted that “investigations into unreported third-party NIL deals are progressing and some schools should expect to hear from the CSC next week.” The College Sports Commission is responsible for reviewing NIL deals and does so through its “NIL Go” platform. So far, it has cleared more than 17,000 deals and rejected more than 500 through NIL Go.

What’s Next?

In a recent interview, former Ohio State University President, Ted Carter, called the current NIL model unsustainable and said that he thinks that it needs to change within the next three years. Specifically, Carter noted “if you look at the trajectory of when we started with the House v. NCAA (settlement) and where we’ve just gone in the last couple of years – yes, we’re moving them out of third party to more interior, we’ve got the College Sports Commission that’s supposed to help vet all of this – it is not sustainable over the next three years unless something changes.” So what does need to change and what can we expect moving forward?

Since the College Sports Commission’s legal authority is currently unclear, given the state of the Participant Agreement, one can expect challenges from universities arguing that the College Sports Commission lacks the authority to investigate or impose penalties. This area appears ripe for litigation.

Furthermore, since powerful voices in college athletics have called the current model “unsustainable,” expect more negotiation involving updated and revised versions of the College Sports Commission’s Participant Agreement. Additionally, it is worth following university presidents’ and athletic directors’ public comments regarding NIL and revenue sharing. Locally, we should keep a close eye on who Ohio State taps to replace Carter, and how he or she views the current NIL landscape. And, it has yet to be seen whether the College Sports Commission will heed the suggestions of the state attorneys general who have already expressed their concerns with the current version of the agreement.

Additionally, there will likely be continued scrutiny of NIL collectives and other associated entities. As the College Sports Commission stated in its January memo, enforcement is happening now. In that memo, it indicated that it would be especially critical of deals that make promises of third-party NIL money now while figuring out how to honor those promises later, since these types of deals later leave student athletes vulnerable to deals not being cleared, promises not being kept and eligibility being placed at risk.

Ultimately, the importance of understanding the quickly evolving legal landscape of NIL only stands to increase in importance.