By Traci Bransford, Shayla Wright, and Timothy Graham
In late November, the College Sports Commission (CSC), the newly formed enforcement agency for revenue sharing in college sports, sent a participation agreement to the Power Four conference schools. The 11-page agreement asks all 68 colleges and universities in the Power Four conferences to waive their right to file lawsuits against the commission and agree to all enforcement decisions and penalties.
CSC’s participation agreement comes amid a flurry of legal and regulatory developments in college sports this past year, including the historic approval in June of the House settlement, which allowed all Division I colleges and universities for the first time ever to compensate their student-athletes directly through revenue sharing. The participation agreement also comes on the heels of unsuccessful congressional efforts to pass the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act, which would effectively protect the NCAA and its member schools from antitrust scrutiny.
Without an antitrust exemption or a collective bargaining agreement that involves significant student-athlete input, there remains to be questions surrounding how the NCAA should enforce NIL and revenue sharing rules. Those very questions may continue to go unanswered in 2026.
CSC’s participation agreement will not go into effect until all 68 schools in the Power Four conferences sign it, and that does not seem likely. The participation agreement has garnered opposition from many schools and state officials, including state attorneys generals. Still, the participation agreement serves as a thunderous exclamation point on what was already a groundbreaking year in college sports, by potentially putting even more power in CSC’s hands and raising legal questions that create a compliance nightmare for Power Four schools.
That said, this past year set a dizzying pace for school administrators, legal counsel, student-athletes, and other industry stakeholders when it comes to navigating legal and regulatory hurdles — ranging from the myriad of lawsuits filed against the NCAA challenging its enforceability issues, to ripple effects in the aftermath of the House settlement, to the shifting landscape of betting around college sports, to athlete representation in brand deals, to antitrust concerns.
By all indications, 2026 shows no signs of slowing down. Here’s a look back at a fast-paced 2025 and a forecast for legal and regulatory trends headed into the new year.
Litigation Trends
In 2025, the NCAA was involved in multiple lawsuits all across the country. Most of the cases filed against the NCAA challenged long-standing eligibility rules, including the NCAA’s JUCO and redshirt rules. Looking ahead, we do not see the proverbial litigation train stopping in 2026 for the NCAA, its member schools, and individual student-athletes.
However, the NCAA may get a little bit of a reprieve as lawsuits involving member schools and their respective conferences and their former student athletes are becoming more frequent. Take, for example, a recent lawsuit filed by a university’s athletic association asking a judge to compel a former player at the university to arbitration. The athletic association claims that the player violated the terms of his NIL deal when he left the university and transferred to another college. A similar issue also popped up at Arkansas earlier this year.
This will be a closely watched lawsuit largely because there have been a number of purported NIL breaches, but no school has gone so far as to initiate a lawsuit against a former athlete until now. Therefore, this lawsuit could be the catalyst for more schools to pursue litigation against individual student-athletes.
Further, in a world where certain schools can gain last-minute recruiting advantages if they have an influx of NIL money, it would not be surprising if we saw more in-fighting between NCAA member schools relating to allegations of tortious interference much like the ongoing lawsuit between Wisconsin and Miami, with more and more schools being able to flip incoming recruits or entice student-athletes to enter the transfer portal.
Aftermath of House
As an initial matter, let’s not forget that the House settlement has been appealed up to the Ninth Circuit on the grounds that settlement damages and other awarded relief violate Title IX and favor revenue-generating sports. The appeal is still in the early stages but there is a scenario — albeit unlikely — where the entire settlement could get tossed. But before any decision is made, there will likely be a flurry of briefs and oral argument before the Ninth Circuit, a circuit court that is historically pro student-athlete as it affirmed both Alston and O’Bannon.
So, assuming the House appeals are unsuccessful, and the approved settlement remains intact, there will likely be a future dispute regarding the enforceability of a mandatory arbitration provision in the settlement agreement. Under House, all Division I student-athletes must report proposed NIL deals worth $600 or more to CSC through NIL Go, a relatively new software created to help track NIL deals, before the deal can be approved and finalized.
If the CSC determines that any given NIL deal does not advance a valid business purpose or is not within a reasonable range of compensation, the deal may not be approved, prompting the student athlete to revise and resubmit the proposed deal, cancel the proposed deal, or challenge the decision to not approve it. Any student-athletes looking to challenge the CSC’s decision, however, have very limited options because all challenges must be done through arbitration and within 14 days after receiving the decision to initiate the arbitration process. Challenging the ruling in court is not an option according to the CSC.
While no one has challenged the mandatory arbitration provision yet, we would not be surprised to see it get challenged in 2026 or in years to come. At its core, arbitration is a creature of contract. It typically requires contractual assent from the parties involved in the arbitration. But that requirement may have been overlooked by the House settlement. Indeed, incoming college student-athletes — who were not a part of the House class — likely have not consented to mandatory arbitration. These athletes may have a basis to challenge a CSC decision in court instead of arbitration unless they’ve signed a separate agreement.
Headed into 2026, we anticipate that more colleges and universities and individual student-athletes will push back against the authority the CSC is trying to carve out for itself.
Sports Betting Developments
The past year also brought a series of high-profile sports betting headlines. In October, the FBI announced that 34 people were charged in separate illegal gambling schemes within the National Basketball Association (NBA). Some players were accused of using NBA insider information while one prominent coach was charged with rigging poker games backed by Mafia families, according to the FBI.
Gambling-related misconduct similar to that seen at the professional level is increasingly impacting collegiate athletics as well. The NCAA announced in November that its member schools voted to rescind a previously approved rule change that would have allowed student-athletes to bet on professional competition. This development comes amid the continued expansion of sports betting over the past decade, including its growing prevalence among college student-athletes.
A recent survey found that one in five male student-athletes violated NCAA rules in 2024 by betting on athletic competition. Additional research indicates that the frequency of sports betting has increased among student-athletes in Division II and, most significantly, in Division III programs.
Recent enforcement actions also underscore the increasing incidents of betting misconduct within collegiate athletics. In November, the NCAA permanently banned six Division I student- athletes for manipulating games or sharing information with bettors and has since announced its investigation of 13 additional players for sports betting violations. These developments reflect the growing compliance challenges now faced by colleges and universities as sports betting continues to proliferate.
Sports betting raises complicated questions about the integrity of sports and the manner in which educational institutions are navigating the issue. As legalized sports betting continues to expand and enforcement activity increases, colleges and universities must maintain robust compliance programs that include athlete education, training, and support, as well as clear monitoring procedures and reporting mechanisms to reduce legal exposure.
Athlete Representation and Influence Activations
With the approval of House, student-athletes and athletic departments are seeing athletes treated much more like brands. As student-athletes work to establish their respective brands, they should be thinking about commercializing that brand even after their collegiate careers end. This means curating a brand that is more than just about a sport. The brand should be authentic to the individual so that even if you’re playing days are over, consumers are still interested in what you have to say and the products you are endorsing.
This can often feel like a long game but there is a tremendous upside. Securing a brand deal that can generate passive income on and off the field is the ideal outcome for both student athletes who will ultimately land a spot on a professional roster, or for the majority of student athletes who will not have that opportunity.
Traci Bransford is a partner in Parker Poe’s Atlanta office and leads the firm’s Sports & Entertainment Industry Team. She can be reached at tracibransford@parkerpoe.com.
Shayla J. Wright is an associate with the firm. She can be reached at shaylawright@parkerpoe.com.
Timothy B. Graham II is an associate with the firm. He can be reached at timothygraham@parkerpoe.com.
