In the wake of the In re: College Athlete Compensation Antitrust Litigation settlement (House settlement), the Power 4 conferences (Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC) created an independent regulatory body called the College Sports Commission (CSC) to implement and enforce the settlement’s framework. Specifically, the CSC enforces the revenue-sharing cap set forth in the House settlement, oversees approval of NIL deals and enforces roster limits. On Nov. 19, 2025, the CSC circulated a membership agreement to all Power 4 schools that could significantly increase the agency’s regulatory authority. The CSC also sent the agreement to the other Division I conferences for distribution to any school that wants to provide a revenue share to student athletes.
The CSC’s proposed membership agreement only becomes effective if signed by all participating schools.
The agreement asks participating schools to waive their right to challenge any CSC rulings in court. Instead, if a school wishes to appeal a decision by the CSC, it must go through an arbitration process. The agreement states that schools also must not attempt to encourage or assist a third party (such as a state attorney general) in filing a lawsuit against the CSC. The agreement further requires schools to “not support, advocate for or lobby for any change in federal, state, or local law that would alter or be inconsistent with [the school’s] obligations under this Agreement.”
Under the proposed membership agreement, schools must also use “best efforts” to get their coaches and boosters to cooperate with any CSC investigation. If a school’s coach or booster fails to cooperate, the school may be penalized. Moreover, the CSC may assume that anyone who does not cooperate in a CSC investigation is withholding information harmful to their side of a case, which the CSC may consider when deciding whether a violation has occurred.
A violation of the terms of the agreement could trigger significant penalties, including the loss of at least one year of revenue from the school’s conference and ineligibility for at least one postseason in any sport involved in the dispute.
The proposed agreement’s key provisions apply only if they do not conflict with the law of the state in which a school is located. This could impact the membership agreement’s effectiveness, since many states have laws preventing public institutions from resolving disputes in arbitration, while other states have recently passed college-sports-specific laws that contradict the proposed framework. The carve-out for conflicts with state law could also result in uneven application of the proposed agreement’s terms.
For questions on the proposed agreement or the evolving landscape of collegiate sports, including issues related to revenue sharing, NIL, student-athlete benefits or scholarships, contact the authors or a member of the Higher Education Enforcement & Regulatory Counseling Practice Group or the Sports Industry Team.