College Sports Commission Releases January 2026 Report on NIL Deals
By Kristi Dosh
Last Updated on January 13, 2026
The College Sports Commission’s newest Deal Flow Report, along with its recent third-party NIL guidance, provides some useful info for athletic departments still acclimating to the post-House enforcement environment. It’s one thing to talk about rules in the abstract; it’s another to see how a centralized review mechanism like NIL Go is shaping outcomes on the ground.
As a reminder, deals over $600 (including multiple deals with the same party that are $600 in the aggregate) must be submitted to NILGo. Here’s the latest data from the CSC on the deals submitted so far.
Many Deals Are Getting Cleared
Here are the raw numbers from the Deal Flow Report about the deals getting cleared:
- 17,321 deals cleared cumulatively through NIL Go, amounting to more than $127 million in total value.
- Since the November report alone, 5,146 new deals worth nearly $40 million have been approved.
- More than 10,800 unique student-athletes have now had at least one cleared deal, with nearly half of those are in sports outside football or men’s basketball.
We also got some new data about the deals getting rejected. The CSC says it has declined to clear 524 deals totaling roughly $14.9 million, predominantly because they lacked a valid business justification, failed to show actual NIL activation, or proposed compensation that wasn’t market-based.
The System Seems to be Moving Faster
One of the persistent concerns when NIL Go launched was that centralized (manual) review would slow deal execution. In practice, however, turnaround times have been better than expected:
- 52% of deals are resolved within 24 hours of complete submission.
- 73% reach resolution within a week.
Those timelines suggest that, for properly documented deals, the review process is working pretty efficiently.
It’s Not Just Football and Men’s Basketball
A noteworthy takeaway from the CSC data is the breadth of NIL activity across sports. While revenue sports still dominate dollar totals, 44% of unique athletes with cleared deals compete in other varsity sports, and deals exist across 40+ NCAA disciplines.
This undermines a common misconception that NIL is only a revenue-sport phenomenon. Athletic departments should consider how NIL offerings are being communicated and supported across the full roster — particularly as equitable access remains a priority for both internal policy and external perception.
Arbitration Has Begun
As of year-end reporting, only 10 cases were in arbitration, and eight were later withdrawn. The CSC said all of the arbitration cases originated from one school with a now-resolved administrative issue.
Third-Party NIL Guidance
The timing of the CSC’s recent reminder to Division I athletics directors last week on third-party NIL deals was not random or coincidental. It was no doubt targeted at a report from Ross Dellenger that LSU had proposed a $3.5M guarantee to QB Brendan Sorsby through its MMR partner, Playfly Sports.
Here was CSC’s response:
An NIL agreement or payment with an associated entity or individual – which includes many MMR and other partners – must include direct activation of the student-athlete’s NIL rights. In other words, the acquisition of such rights without reasonable specificity of the NIL activation (e.g., description of the specific group licensing categories, the student athlete’s obligations related to the activation, timing and ultimate use of the student athlete’s NIL) may not satisfy the requirements for payments by associated entities or individuals. (See Bylaw 22.1.3.) Contracts in which MMR or other partners pay student athletes for their NIL with no information about who will ultimately use that NIL will likely run afoul of this rule.
That memo sent around by CSC re-emphasized a few core guidelines:
- Third-party NIL deals that pay athletes $600 or more must be submitted to and cleared by NIL Go.
- Compensation must reflect a valid business purpose and actual NIL activation
- Early reporting remains critical: promising payment before clearance exposes athletes and programs to compliance risk.
- Contracts must specify how the athlete’s NIL is going to be used, not just a promise to find uses in the future.
- The CSC is actively watching for third-party offers tied to transfer decisions or retention incentives that could run afoul of the House settlement’s terms.
What This Means for Athletic Departments
The NIL ecosystem remains dynamic, but the direction of travel is clear: centralized review and enforcement are now part of the landscape. Athletic departments that treat these systems as check-the-box afterthoughts will be left sorting through rejected deals and compliance headaches.
You can see previous NIL deal reports from the CSC below:
