Details Emerging About Enforcement of the House Settlement

Last Updated on June 8, 2025

As college athletics prepares to transition into a new era post-House settlement, attention is turning toward how this new model will be enforced.

Three major details are taking shape: the creation of a centralized College Sports Commission (CSC) with sweeping oversight powers, establishment of Deloitte’s clearinghouse to review deals, and a contract circulated by power conferences aimed at binding their members to the terms of the settlement and NCAA rules—regardless of what state law might allow.

Here’s a breakdown of what we know so far and what it means for the future of college sports governance.

The NIL Clearinghouse Run by Deloitte

The House settlement introduces an NIL Clearinghouse operated by Deloitte called NIL Go, which will be owned by the new enforcement entity, CSC. This system is designed to evaluate third-party NIL deals valued at $600 or more, ensuring they reflect fair market value and serve a legitimate business purpose.

Under the new compliance framework, athletes will submit NIL deal information directly to their athletic department, which will designate a staff member —referred to as a “change champion”—to manage this process on campus and serve as the point person for facilitating NIL deal reviews and ensuring institutional compliance.

Schools must assess whether the payor qualifies as a booster, a collective, or a company with institutional ties. This classification hinges on several factors, including whether the entity was created to support the athletic department, has donated more than $50,000 to the school, or employs individuals with direct connections to the institution or its affiliates.

According to the settlement, only deals flagged as originating from boosters, collectives, or similar entities will be subject to this deeper review and valuation analysis through the Deloitte-run clearinghouse.

To make the “fair market value” determinations, Deloitte will be leveraging a database of thousands of past NIL deals involving both college and professional athletes to establish benchmarks. According to a three-page memo that’s been distributed to schools, Deloitte will use a 12-point analysis “assessing if compensation aligns with similarly situated individuals in comparable deals.” Factors listed in the memo include: “athletic performance, social media presence, local and institutional market size, and brand influence.”

Under the current plan, Deloitte is expected to review and render decisions on submitted NIL contracts within as little as one day. If a deal is rejected, the athlete will have the opportunity to revise and resubmit the deal to reflect Deloitte’s valuation.

If a deal is rejected a second time, it will be escalated to the CSC CEO and enforcement staff, and then funneled through a formal arbitration process overseen by the courts. Athletes will remain eligible while their case is under review, with arbitration decisions expected within 45 days. However, if an athlete loses arbitration and still accepts payment from a deal deemed out of bounds, they will be ruled ineligible.

Last week, at ACC spring meetings, Deloitte’s team shared data that 70% of past NIL deals from collectives would have been denied by their standards. Expect lawsuits as soon as Deloitte starts rejecting deals, which will force it to defend and reveal it’s “fair market value” formula.

Creation of the College Sports Commission

In order to enforce compliance with the revenue-sharing model, the clearinghouse decisions, and other elements of the House settlement, the NCAA and power conferences are establishing the CSC, a separate LLC that will be led by a to-be-hired CEO.

The CSC will have the authority to:

• Oversee and interpret the application of new rules developed as part of the House settlement structure
• Investigate violations of revenue-sharing rules and other agreed-upon settlement terms
• Levy penalties for non-compliance, which could include fines, suspensions, penalties and other sanctions (these have not yet been detailed)

Sources told ESPN that schools will be able to challenge any penalties through an arbitration process. A potential huge change, however, may be subpoena power during the discovery process. This is a key element that has been missing from NCAA investigations in the past.

The CSC will be independent from the NCAA enforcement staff and led by a CEO in an effort to lend more credibility and transparency to how the new system is policed. The intent is to avoid the inconsistency and slow enforcement processes that have plagued the NCAA in recent years. The NCAA will continue to handle enforcement around other rules like academics and eligibility.

A Contract Binding Schools to the New Enforcement Rules

The latest development is a contract that the power conferences—Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, ACC, and potentially others opting into the settlement—are asking their member institutions to sign. Ross Dellenger reports this contract is essentially a binding agreement that reinforces the terms of the settlement and NCAA rules, even in states where laws might allow schools to sidestep those regulations.

Here’s what’s reportedly included:

• Commitment to follow NCAA and conference rules, even when those rules are more restrictive than state laws.
• Enforceable penalties for institutions that break the rules, including financial penalties, loss of revenue-sharing eligibility, and even competitive sanctions.
• A formal dispute resolution process, meant to streamline internal enforcement and reduce the need for litigation between schools and conferences.

The goal of the contract is clear: prevent a patchwork of compliance standards that could arise in states with more permissive laws for NIL and revenue sharing. Without a unifying agreement, schools in restrictive states could find themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to schools in states that allow more direct compensation or looser NIL arrangements.

Dellenger reports schools who refuse to sign are risking loss of their conference membership and ability to compete against other power conference programs. However, questions remain about the legality of signing a document that asks you to not follow your state law, as those laws override private agreements. Tennessee’s new law, for example, prohibits the adoption of rules that violate state law and prohibit punishment that would impact a school’s membership status or revenue distribution.

As with everything surrounding the House settlement, the answers are still unfolding around all three of these new mechanisms.

See states currently allowing direct payments to college athletes