CSC Power Grab Sparks Campus Fury as universities and state attorneys general push back against a proposed membership agreement that expands the College Sports Commission’s enforcement authority over NIL deals and revenue sharing. This article examines the regulatory tensions, opposition dynamics, and compliance implications arising from the College Sports Commission’s bold move to centralize control in the post-House settlement era.
Regulatory Landscape
The College Sports Commission (CSC) emerged from the House v. NCAA settlement, approved by the court in 2025, which introduced revenue-sharing caps starting at $20.5 million per school, NIL deal approvals, roster limits, and bans on pay-for-play arrangements. The CSC functions as an independent regulatory body created by Power 4 conferences (Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, SEC) to implement and enforce these terms, overseeing submissions via systems like NIL Go for deal approvals.
On November 19, 2025, the CSC circulated an 11-page University Participation Agreement to Power 4 schools and other Division I institutions opting into revenue sharing. Key provisions require schools to waive rights to challenge CSC rulings in court, mandating arbitration instead, as outlined in the House settlement. Schools must refrain from encouraging or assisting third parties, such as state attorneys general, in suing the CSC, and avoid lobbying for laws inconsistent with the agreement.
The agreement demands ‘best efforts’ from schools to ensure coaches, boosters, and collectives cooperate with CSC investigations. Non-cooperation allows the CSC to presume withheld harmful information, influencing violation determinations. Penalties for breaches include loss of conference revenue for at least one year, postseason ineligibility, fines, roster reductions, or scholarship limits. Annual audits apply to schools spending 75% or more of revenue-share allotments.
These rules interact with federal antitrust frameworks from cases like House, Alston, and O’Bannon, while state laws pose conflicts. For instance, many states prohibit public institutions from binding arbitration, and recent NIL statutes in states like Tennessee contradict CSC policies. The U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission monitor for antitrust issues, with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division overseeing sports-related mergers and enforcements. Federal proposals like the SCORE Act, SAFE Act, and President Trump’s ‘Saving College Sports’ Executive Order seek to preempt state variations but remain stalled.
The CSC’s authority derives from voluntary school participation, effective only if all Power 4 schools sign, highlighting its quasi-regulatory status without direct statutory backing from Congress or the Federal Trade Commission.
Why This Happened
The CSC’s push stems from enforcement challenges post-House settlement, effective July 2025, amid chaotic NIL markets and revenue-sharing implementation. Between June and August 2025, schools submitted over 8,500 deals worth $80 million, with approvals lagging, exposing loopholes exploited by boosters and collectives for recruiting inducements.
Historically, NCAA enforcement faltered due to litigation floods, as seen in Alston (2021) and ongoing cases like Bailey and Jenkins, where courts rejected motions to dismiss VPPA claims over broadcast rights. The CSC, launched in summer 2025 with CEO Bryan Seeley, aims to ‘put meat on the bones’ of the settlement by closing these gaps, preventing richest schools from dominance via unchecked spending.
Political and economic drivers include protecting non-revenue sports, women’s athletics, and competitive balance, as emphasized in Trump’s Executive Order mandating scholarship preservation. State AGs like Tennessee’s Jonathan Skrmetti and Texas’s Ken Paxton oppose, viewing it as unaccountable power mirroring past NCAA overreach. This moment matters now as the 2025-26 season unfolds with transfer portals and bowl games, where unsigned agreements hobble investigations despite tips received.
Operational pressures from Power 4 commissioners negotiating the terms without broad input fueled perceptions of a hasty power consolidation, delaying full enforcement amid VPPA lawsuits surviving motions to dismiss, signaling judicial scrutiny on athlete rights.
The Impact
For universities, signing binds them to CSC oversight, exposing them to penalties like revenue losses impacting athletic budgets, potentially cascading to cuts in non-revenue programs. Public schools face state law barriers; for example, arbitration waivers may void in states like Tennessee, leading to uneven enforcement and litigation risks.
Financially, high-spending schools risk audits and cap restrictions, such as limiting football to 30% of allotments, disrupting booster collectives integral to NIL funding. Governance shifts require embedding CSC compliance in coach contracts and booster agreements, heightening individual accountability—coaches or officials deemed non-cooperative could trigger school suspensions or penalties.
Athletes encounter indirect effects: roster limits and deal scrutiny curb opportunities, while non-revenue sports face Title IX pressures if revenue skews to football and basketball. Student-athletes suing CSC risk school penalties, chilling rights under VPPA or antitrust laws. Boosters and agencies face investigation mandates, with non-cooperation presuming guilt, elevating personal liability.
Compliance obligations demand deal disclosures, record retention, and notification protocols, with violations inviting enforcement exposure. Penalties could bar postseason access, affecting recruiting and valuations in the multibillion-dollar college sports market.
Enforcement Direction, Industry Signals, and Market Response
Not all Power 4 schools have signed, with delays as institutions like Texas Tech consult internally, general counsel advising against due to overreach on due process and enforcement clarity. Tennessee AG Skrmetti led a multi-state letter on December 3, 2025, cosigned by Texas, Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, decrying lack of input and threats to transparency.
CSC has begun enforcement sans full agreement, hiring investigators and pursuing tips via NIL Go, but needs signatures for teeth. Conferences push participation as logical post-House opt-in, yet resistance signals market fragmentation. Legal experts note state conflicts necessitate federal preemption, with stalled bills like SAFE Act highlighting congressional inaction.
Industry reactions include schools debating via memos on records retention and coach inclusions, while athletes’ advocates question rights waivers for non-revenue sports. Market analysis points to intensified lobbying for uniform laws, as uneven rules advantage compliant states, potentially sparking a patchwork of retaliatory statutes.
Compliance Expectations and Practical Requirements
Organizations must review state laws against agreement terms, consulting counsel on arbitration viability—public schools in prohibitive states should document conflicts to avoid waiver claims. Implement internal protocols for ‘best efforts’ cooperation, including clauses in coach and booster contracts mandating CSC compliance.
Submit all NIL deals promptly via NIL Go, maintaining audit-ready records for high spenders. Train compliance officers on violation reporting and cap management to preempt investigations. Avoid common pitfalls like ignoring booster deals or lobbying against CSC—track state AG actions to assess third-party risks.
For individuals, coaches should log all athlete interactions, refusing non-compliant directives. Boosters need transparency policies, disclosing inducements. Recommendations include forming cross-functional teams for deal vetting, scenario-planning penalties, and monitoring federal developments via the U.S. Congress website. Conduct mock audits quarterly to test readiness.
As resistance mounts, unsigned schools risk CSC exclusion from revenue systems, pressuring eventual alignment. Forward, expect refined agreements balancing authority with due process, alongside intensified federal pushes for preemption amid VPPA and antitrust pressures. Emerging standards may solidify CSC via legislation, heightening risks for non-compliant actors in this evolving landscape.
FAQ
1. What happens if a school refuses to sign the CSC Participation Agreement?
Ans: The agreement requires all Power 4 schools to sign for effectiveness; non-signers may face exclusion from revenue-sharing systems, limited enforcement cooperation, and competitive disadvantages as CSC pursues investigations independently.
2. How does state law affect CSC enforcement powers?
Ans: Provisions like arbitration waivers apply only if not conflicting with state law; states barring public arbitration or with divergent NIL rules create uneven application, prompting calls for federal preemption.
3. Can athletes still sue the CSC under the agreement?
Ans: Yes, but schools assisting or encouraging suits face penalties like revenue loss; the agreement targets institutional involvement, not direct athlete actions, though chilling effects persist.
4. What are the penalties for non-cooperation in CSC investigations?
Ans: Schools penalized via revenue forfeiture, postseason bans; CSC presumes non-cooperators withhold harmful info, coaches or boosters trigger institutional liability if uncooperative.
5. Is federal legislation likely to resolve CSC-state conflicts?
Ans: Proposals like SCORE and SAFE Acts aim to preempt states, but stalled progress leaves CSC vulnerable; executive orders urge action, yet no guidance issued by late 2025.
6. How does the VPPA lawsuit impact CSC operations?
Ans: Surviving motions to dismiss signals ongoing athlete rights challenges over broadcasts; it underscores litigation risks CSC seeks to curb via arbitration mandates.