Skip to main content
Join Now
Get a profile. Be recruited.

The new group policing NIL payments has left collectives little choice but to sue for their survival

Andy Staples head shotby:Andy Staples•07/15/25•

andy_staples

On3 image

The College Sports Commission was born from a federal class action lawsuit. The CSC’s first mass communication to the schools it serves likely will inspire even more lawsuits.

Last week, the CSC — the organization created by defendant conferences in the wake of the House v. NCAA settlement to police third-party name, image and likeness deals — issued guidance to schools regarding which third-party deals between athletes and third parties will pass muster and which will be denied. In the process, the CSC quite clearly defined the class that will try to sue the CSC either out of existence or into irrelevance. 

NIL collectives may have no choice but to sue, because if the guidance stands, most of them would go extinct. In the memo sent to schools, the CSC offered an example of a deal that would get denied. The example stated that a collective couldn’t pay a player to appear at a meet-and-greet to which the collective charged fans admission. 

This is viewed by the CSC as an attempted circumvention of the $20.5 million-per-school-per-year revenue share cap established by the settlement. But only the schools and players are bound by the terms of the settlement, which requires them to pursue arbitration should they disagree with a CSC decision. 

Collectives and their operators aren’t party to the settlement. If they have an issue, they’d have to sue. And it seems if they want to stay in business, that’s what they’ll have to do.

Here’s what the collectives probably would argue. Plenty of businesses charge fans to meet famous people. Every autograph show in the history of the planet is an example. Based on this, Comic-Con and its various spinoffs would be out of luck if its stars were college athletes and not actors whose projects are beloved by nerds. Concert promoters also charge for meet-and-greets, but that practice would apparently fail to satisfy the CSC as a legitimate business endeavor.

Are these particular college athlete meet-and-greets staged to create a reason to give money to the players? Absolutely. The collectives aren’t hiding that. Fans and donors are paying collectives because they would like to financially support the players — just as a die-hard fan of a band wants to support the members by buying a special wristband to get backstage.

“I was surprised to see that the CSC thought they had the authority to put dozens of businesses out of business simply because they had a valid business purpose the CSC didn’t like,” said Arkansas-based attorney Tom Mars, who has represented multiple collectives through the years. In the highest profile case, Mars represented Tennessee-adjacent collective Spyre Sports when the NCAA was investigating Spyre’s deal with then-Volunteers quarterback Nico Iamaleava.

House plaintiffs attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman sent a letter to the CSC on Friday demanding that the guidance be retracted lest they challenge it to the special master assigned to manage the settlement. But Kessler and Berman wrote on behalf of the athletes who were their clients. The collectives themselves also may feel they need to take action because as it stands, the CSC guidance represents an existential threat.

It sounds as if Mars — who also has represented multiple coaches against the NCAA — would happy to represent collectives that feel aggrieved. “What’s next?” he said. “The CSC declaring that Budweiser doesn’t have a valid business purpose because Bud Light is too woke?”

If you’re wondering how Mars might present a case, he’s offering clues on social media.

Those who run college sports insist they must have some ability to rein in athlete compensation. “I’ve asked repeatedly in conference meetings, if we don’t want any limits or any structure, just let me know,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said Monday at SEC media days. “Then the phone stops ringing. But over and over again in meeting rooms, the desire has been for a structure. So we are implementing a structure even with some bumps in the road. We need to commit to that structure. We need to be willing to make that structure work.”

To that end, commissioners have tried to lobby the U.S. Congress to effectively memorialize the House settlement as federal law and give the schools an antitrust exemption that would keep them for being sued for the violations of the Sherman Act that have plagued the industry in recent years. On Monday, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the House of Representatives that would do just that. Such a bill might get out of committee and pass in the House, but getting the 60 votes required to break a filibuster in the Senate could be a significant challenge.

“I remember School House Rock, right?” Sankey joked Monday. “I’m just a bill, yeah, I’m only a bill, I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill. So congratulations; we have a bill on Capitol Hill that is sitting and requires a great deal of more work.”

Sankey understands a federal law that grants all of his desires — as the one just introduced does — is probably unlikely. And the commissioners’ dream bill already has powerful enemies. The players associations the represent players in the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS and Major League Baseball released a joint statement Monday urging representatives to reject any request for an antitrust exemption from colleges. Presumably, these unions don’t want their leagues to think they can go running to Congress for a free pass to violate the Sherman Act.

Others have suggested that legislative relief is a pipe dream and collective bargaining with the athletes is the only legal way to establish a salary cap that wouldn’t be obliterated by lawsuits. Tennessee athletic director Danny White unveiled his plan for collective bargaining last month. Last week, Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy said schools need to “admit the players are employees” so collective bargaining can begin.

Monday, SEC coaches were peppered with questions about the House settlement, the revenue sharing cap and third-party deals. Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin probably gave the most currently accurate answer when asked about a potential salary cap.

“We’ve tried to follow the guidelines because that’s what we were told we needed to do,” Kiffin said. “I’m not saying they’re wrong for doing it. I’m not calling anybody out. If the system isn’t solid enough to prevent that, then we really don’t have a system.”

The leaders of college sports thought they had a system, but two weeks in, that system is about to be beset from all sides.