Weekly NIL Ledger Newsletter
Introduction
Another week in the NIL era, and the storylines continue to evolve at a pace college sports has never seen before. Courts are shaping eligibility rules, new enforcement bodies are testing their authority, coaches are debating whether spending should be capped or expanded, and programs are beginning to realize that winning in this environment requires more than simply outspending the competition. This week’s newsletter looks at three major eligibility lawsuits, the early role of the College Sports Commission, the growing complaints about uneven resources, and why a collective bargaining agreement may ultimately be the only solution that brings long-term stability. At the same time, schools like Missouri and Stanford are showing that defining a unique value proposition may matter more than chasing an endless arms race, while high school NIL debates signal that the next legal battleground is already forming.
Another Week, Another Wave of Eligibility Litigation
Another week, another onslaught of eligibility litigation. It is important to say clearly that this surge in lawsuits is not the fault of athletes or their attorneys. The current landscape is the result of a governing body that continues to hold onto an outdated framework while waiting for an antitrust exemption or federal intervention that would allow the old model to survive in a completely new economic reality. Courts are not creating chaos. They are responding to rules that were never built for NIL, transfer mobility, or modern athlete compensation.
There also needs to be a level setting around public reaction. No, it is not ideal for long-time professionals to suddenly return to college sports. But the NCAA has historically allowed flexibility in certain situations, especially for international athletes and non-traditional development paths. And despite the headlines, elite professionals are not lining up to come back. Players at true NBA earning levels have no incentive to return to college when they are already earning significantly more at the professional level.
Joey Aguilar
The Joey Aguilar case is quickly becoming one of the most important eligibility disputes to watch because it sits at the intersection of NIL economics and outdated eligibility rules. A Tennessee state court granted Aguilar an ex parte temporary restraining order preventing the NCAA from enforcing its junior college eligibility rule against him, allowing him to enroll and participate in spring practice while the lawsuit moves forward.
In granting the TRO, the court found that all four traditional factors weighed in Aguilar’s favor. First, the judge determined there was a likelihood of success on the merits, signaling skepticism toward how the NCAA applies its JUCO eligibility rules. Second, the court found irreparable harm, noting that preventing Aguilar from playing could cost him significant NIL opportunities, including an expected 2 million dollars in compensation. Third, the balance of equities favored Aguilar because allowing him to compete created little harm to the NCAA, while denying participation could significantly impact his career. Finally, the court held that immediate relief served the public interest, emphasizing the time-sensitive nature of college athletics and the importance of resolving eligibility disputes quickly.
After beginning at Appalachian State, transferring through UCLA without playing a down, and emerging as Tennessee’s quarterback, the NCAA is now preventing him from using what would be his fourth Division I season. He previously joined the Diego Pavia lawsuit before voluntarily dismissing and filing his own state court action, reflecting a broader shift toward athletes seeking relief in state courts where recent TRO decisions have favored players.
The NCAA responded with a sharply worded statement warning that differing court rulings create instability and arguing that repeated challenges risk “robbing high school athletes” of opportunities while again pushing for congressional action.
Amari Bailey
A quick reminder on Amari Bailey. The former UCLA guard was drafted, appeared in NBA games for the Hornets, and is now exploring a return to college basketball. The reason this case remains in the conversation is the NCAA’s response. Senior Vice President Tim Buckley stated that “the NCAA has not and will not grant eligibility to any players who have signed an NBA contract,” emphasizing that professional athletes should not be able to litigate their way back into college competition.
Charles Bediako
A quick reset on Charles Bediako. The former Alabama center signed a two-way NBA contract but never appeared in an NBA game, creating a legal gray area that continues to evolve. The latest development centers on SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey filing an affidavit urging courts to uphold NCAA eligibility rules and warning that inconsistent rulings fuel instability across college athletics.
CSC and LSU
While courts continue to shape eligibility, the new enforcement era under the College Sports Commission is starting to take real form, and LSU became one of the first public examples of what that looks like. The inquiry centered on whether at least one LSU athlete failed to properly report third-party NIL compensation through the NIL Go clearinghouse, which requires deals exceeding 600 dollars to be submitted under the House settlement framework.
Importantly, the situation was never a department-wide investigation and did not involve the football program. The CSC had sent outreach letters to multiple schools after issuing updated guidance during the transfer portal window, signaling a broader compliance review rather than a targeted enforcement action.
LSU released a statement noting it had been in regular communication with the commission and expected a quick resolution. That is exactly what happened. The school later confirmed that any deals requiring submission had been filed with NIL Go and that the inquiry was closed with no disciplinary action taken.
The Complaints Era and What People Are Getting Wrong
UCLA basketball coach Mick Cronin recently called for a salary cap, arguing that the current NIL landscape has turned recruiting into a financial arms race. That reaction reflects growing frustration from coaches trying to navigate a rapidly changing system, but a cap alone will not solve what many describe as the “wild west.”
Resources in college sports have never been equal. UTSA will never have the same financial infrastructure as Texas, just as smaller programs have historically competed against blue bloods with larger budgets and stronger booster networks. NIL did not create that gap. It exposed it. Even if a salary cap were implemented, programs would likely find workarounds, much like the loopholes already being debated around the House settlement revenue sharing framework.
To further challenge the cap narrative, St. John’s coach Rick Pitino floated a different idea, calling for a salary floor that would require schools to invest at a minimum level rather than restricting top-tier spending. Meanwhile, USC coach Lincoln Riley argued that NIL has actually leveled the playing field nationally, allowing programs outside traditional recruiting hotbeds to compete in ways that were not previously possible.
Houston coach Kelvin Sampson added another perspective when he described his program as “poor” in NIL funding before later walking the comment back. Despite those concerns, Houston continues to win at a high level and recently signed a top quarterback who secured an NIL deal. The reality is that strategy and identity still matter. Programs that define how they compete can find success even without the largest budgets.
The Solutions Conversation: Why a CBA May Be the Only Path Forward
“We need to create a CBA.”
That was Kirk Herbstreit’s blunt conclusion when discussing the future of college football governance. He compared the fragmented college landscape to the NFL, where one commissioner governs all teams.
Herbstreit argued that unionizing players and negotiating a collective bargaining agreement may be the only way to create rules that survive antitrust scrutiny. I agree with that assessment. Salary caps alone will not survive legal scrutiny without a negotiated system.
Programs Finding a Way to Win Instead of Chasing an Arms Race
Missouri: Structure Over Chaos
Missouri provides one of the clearest examples of structural adaptation in the NIL era, along with many other programs. The program is leaning into revenue sharing tied to athlete NIL rights, marking a shift away from booster driven deal making toward centralized planning.
Stanford and Andrew Luck: The Unique Value Proposition
Andrew Luck has emphasized Stanford’s unique value proposition, acknowledging that the program cannot simply outspend competitors. Instead, Stanford is leaning into identity, combining elite academics with serious football development while navigating what Luck described as a murky NIL marketplace.
The High School NIL Debate Is Starting to Mirror College
The next battleground may be high school athletics, where states are now moving in completely opposite directions.
In Ohio, lawmakers introduced House Bill 661 to roll back NIL rights for middle and high school athletes after the Ohio High School Athletic Association voted to allow NIL statewide following a lawsuit. Supporters of the bill argue that school sports should remain an extension of the classroom and say younger athletes are not emotionally prepared to manage contracts or income. Lawmakers also raised concerns about compliance burdens and taxpayer-funded facilities being used for what they view as employment activity. Nearly 79 percent of OHSAA member schools had originally voted to allow NIL, highlighting how divided the issue has become.
Mississippi shows the opposite approach. House Bill 1400 would create a structured NIL framework for high school athletes with strict guardrails, including written contracts signed by parents, bans on pay for play or transfer inducements, and a cap allowing up to ten thousand dollars per year to be paid directly, while larger amounts would be placed into a restricted trust until the athlete turns eighteen.
These debates are also shifting the legal conversation toward employment. As states introduce tax guidance and begin treating NIL compensation like income, the line between amateur participation and economic activity becomes harder to maintain.
Other News Around NIL
Tennessee softball standout Karlyn Pickens became the first college athlete to sign an NIL deal with AUSL.
Mississippi State added a BankFirst sponsorship logo to Dudy Noble Field baselines.
Georgia launched the “Glory Glory” third-party NIL initiative.
https://www.on3.com/nil/news/georgia-announces-glory-glory-third-party-nil-initiative/
UTEP coach Scotty Walden reportedly gave 80,000 dollars of his own salary toward revenue sharing.
Florida State and Penn State reported massive athletics-related debt totals.
https://www.on3.com/nil/news/florida-state-reports-437-million-athletics-related-debt-fiscal-year-2025/ https://www.on3.com/nil/news/penn-state-reports-nearly-535-million-athletics-related-debt-2025-beaver-stadium/
Conclusion
This week’s developments show that the NIL era is no longer defined by one storyline. Litigation is reshaping eligibility, enforcement structures are evolving, and national voices are beginning to acknowledge that structural change may be inevitable. As I say every week, until a negotiated system emerges, adaptation will continue to define success in a landscape that now operates under entirely different economic rules.
Thank you, as always, to all readers of the NIL Ledger Weekly Newsletter!
