As two branches of government consider joining the NIL fray, confusion continues in the post-House world

Less than three weeks into the official start of revenue sharing and other House v. NCAA settlement initiatives and there has only been more speculation and questions. Conversations over the future of the sport and NIL have been littered with talks of shady money being thrown around more than ever. The rules are unclear and feature too many workarounds. It appears as if no one fully grasps what is going on, and different actors are trying to maximize what they can do amongst the chaos. While there is so much more to come, here is what we know so far.

[Sign up for Inside Texas for $1 and get PLUS access up to the Ohio State game!]

Schools and those in school ecosystems have been attempting to use a variety of unique workarounds and loopholes to revenue sharing. There is widespread belief that schools are using variations of several tactics. Schools are throwing around “fake money” that they’re not sure they can pay, making offers that would put them way over the revenue sharing cap.

Schools are also still utilizing third-party collectives to pay current players and high school recruits with deals that the NCAA believes are pay-to-play. Collectives are promising NIL deals despite the fact that the NCAA believes those kinds of NIL terms cannot be used as a recruiting inducement and that they don’t serve a necessary “valid business purpose.” Meanwhile, several different state laws allow for high school aged prospects to make money off of NIL in spite of what the NCAA says, and even says the law of the land supersedes the regulations of the NCAA.

RELATED

• An attempt to alleviate the confusion related to House, NIL, pay-for-play, Deloitte, etc.

Schools are also negotiating revenue sharing deals before August 1, the date the NCAA says is the earliest those negotiations can take place. Revenue sharing deals are the result of a term of the House settlement that allows for schools to share up to $20.5 million of revenue with student-athletes.

Beyond this, a select amount of programs had the financial flexibility to anticipate the impacts of revenue sharing and stay ahead of the curve. Collectives that were wealthy and smart enough front-loaded their roster with millions of dollars of third party NIL deals in the spring to pay for this year’s roster. Those schools now now have a massive advantage. By doing this, schools were able to finalize NIL deals with players without having to be processed through NILGo.

And NILGo has created nothing but problems.

NILGo is the Deloitte/College Sports Commission-run clearinghouse that reviews all NIL deals over $600. Over 12,000 athletes and 11,000 school officials have registered. NIL deals must “have valid business purpose,” according to the clearinghouse’s website. NILGo was created by the College Sports Commission as a result of Judge Claudia Wilken’s approval of the House settlement, which refers not to the U.S. House of Representatives but rather Grant House. House was a Division I swimmer at Arizona State University and one of the first athletes to challenge the NCAA’s limits on athlete compensation. His co-plaintiff was former Oregon and TCU basketball player Sedona Prince.

The two newly-created regulatory bodies created by the Power Conferences in the College Sports Commission and NILGo have been extremely slowed down and tied up in legal issues associated with the House settlement. According to Yahoo, the attorneys for House recently sent a letter to the NCAA demanding that they retract the guidance that states third party NIL deals crafted with collectives do not serve a valid business purpose and cannot be approved.

This is the main dispute coming from the CSC and NILGo.

The request to remove the “valid business purpose” language is a telling sign that student-athletes want fewer obstacles toward payments, and also that the NCAA’s efforts to stymie the existence of collectives is an uphill climb. The “valid business purpose” restriction is one that looks like the kind the courts have regularly slapped in litigation involving the NCAA.

One potential obstacle for the student-athletes could be the SCORE Act, which is making its way through the U.S. House of Representatives. The act is seen as a clean-up for college sports in that it provides stability via one system of rules as opposed to varying regulations passed by the different states.

Critics believe that it limits players too much as it restricts their NIL eligibility and provides them with less overall flexibility such as no ability to unionize. However, it is a “student-athlete first” deal in how many protections it provides players such as scholarship and injury protections, healthcare, and agent assistance. It requires schools to offer academic and health support. The SCORE Act also restricts the use of student fees to fund athletics, safeguards smaller athletic programs and Olympic sports, and bans the classification of athletes as employees.

That final piece is significant if you care about college sports remaining unique from professional sports. The act also comes with a great deal of NIL oversight and limited antitrust exemptions for the NCAA. It will also override state NIL law, establishing federal uniformity. That has pros and cons for all parties.

The SCORE Act could be a pivotal shift as it aims to balance order in NIL, athlete protections, and NCAA interests. But it’s still in flux, with big implications for athlete agency, funding models, and the overall economics of collegiate sports. Plus, President Donald Trump is reportedly considering signing an executive order regarding NIL and college sports, which would bring with it a different set of issues.

Texas’ model consolidates brand development, deal execution, and media content under one roof while the Texas One Fund remains a separate entity independent from the university as it tries to craft NIL deals that fit into the limits, if there are any, of the House settlement. Putting brand development on the newly created Longhorn Sports Agency alongside Learfield increases efficiency and control but may consign athletes to a narrower “official” partner pool. Meanwhile, the Texas One Fund allows for Texas to pay its players outside the $20.5 million cap for the entire athletic department via crafting for-profit deals with Austin and Texas based businesses. But as mentioned, collectives and their role are under intense scrutiny.

The early days of revenue-sharing have demonstrated that we are far from stability in college athletics. Legal ambiguity, institutional opportunism, and regulatory delays have created more confusion than clarity. As schools scramble to find advantages within gray areas, it’s clear the landscape is constantly evolving. Even the battlefield where these issues will be decided seems to change from one branch of government to another at a moment’s notice.

[Want to be the most informed Texas Longhorns football fan? Order the 2025 edition of Thinking Texas Football today!]

As the rules get rewritten in real time, schools like Texas are trying to get ahead of the game while some schools are still reacting. As the chaos continues, the need for an enforceable NIL structure has never been more dire. And if not enforceable NIL structure, then something that makes it possible to know what’s legal and what’s not.