Motion to Disrupt Vol. 1
COLLEGE SPORTS COMPLIANCE CRISIS. WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE.
OPENING STATEMENTS
Last week’s House v. NCAA settlement and the announcement of a new college sports commission are being framed as major steps forward. Maybe they are. But let’s not confuse resolution with clarity. These changes haven’t settled the future of college sports—they’ve just changed the terrain.
What we’ve done is hand out a few answers and create a thousand new questions. How will the revenue-sharing model actually work? Will Title IX be enforced in athlete payments? What’s the NCAA’s role now that a commission is stepping in? And most importantly— who will protect student athletes while institutions are focused on protecting themselves from impending litigation?
This moment reminds me of April 2011, when the Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague” letter that introduced and mandated how institutions would need to approach compliance with Title IX. That letter reshaped how sexual misconduct cases were handled on campus. Like today, it was a shift driven by policy and pressure—and like today, it left institutions scrambling to interpret, comply, and communicate rules that weren’t fully constructed yet.
I worked on Title IX enforcement during that time. What I learned is that big policy moments like these don’t just challenge systems. They change the entire landscape, upset the level playing field, and create legal gray zones where people—namely, student-athletes—get lost.The risk of this disruption is once again ever present.
The Settlement Isn't the Finish Line
The House v. NCAA settlement makes headlines because it opens the door to revenue-sharing with athletes. But there’s no agreement yet on how that will work, who qualifies, how much schools can pay, or how it complies with Title IX.
We’re moving toward a professionalized model of college sports. But it’s happening without professional-grade infrastructure. And as lawyers, compliance officers, and administrators try to make sense of it, the players at the center of this upheaval are left without clear rules to follow or procedures they can depend on.
Right now, the NCAA still hasn’t explained how its new NIL clearinghouse will operate or who will enforce the standards. Conferences are writing side agreements to bypass state law. A new “commission” is forming, but with unclear authority and no defined power structure.
This isn’t governance. It’s improvisation.
A Dangerous Place for Athletes
When the 2011 Title IX letter came down, schools didn’t get a roadmap. They got a directive. Many responded by overcorrecting. Others resisted and fell out of compliance. In both cases, the students caught in the middle paid the price. Some lost due process. Others lost justice.
That’s what happens in moments like this. Athletes will now be told different things depending on what school they’re at, what conference they’re in, and what policies their athletic departments decide to interpret a certain way. Some will be paid. Others won’t. Some will think they have rights that don’t actually exist. Others won’t know they can challenge a system that’s treating them unfairly.
This is the worst place for a student-athlete to be: inside a system in flux with no clarity, no protection, and no voice in the decisions being made.
Title IX Hasn’t Been Answered
Let’s be clear: Title IX isn’t an asterisk to these changes—it’s central. Schools must ensure gender equity in athlete compensation. That’s the law.
Yet, there’s been almost no serious discussion of how Title IX fits into the coming revenue model. That’s a problem. The issue was sidelined in the settlement approval by the Judge who said the issue was not relevant in the antitrust action. And we’ve already seen the first appeal of the settlement arrive this week via a Title IX complaint.
Unlike scholarships or roster spots, which Title IX helped to regulate, pay-for-play can't be so easily and quietly balanced. How do you justify paying a quarterback millions but nothing to a championship gymnast? Or funding all-male rosters with booster money while female rosters fight to compete?
We need those answers now—not after the lawsuits start.
The Commission Can’t Fix What It Doesn’t Define
A college sports commission sounds like a good idea. But right now, it’s an empty container. What authority will it have? Will it make rules? Enforce them? Coordinate with the Department of Education? Will it include athlete representation? Will it operate in public or behind closed doors?
I worked through the federal regulatory system during a moment like this. I can tell you: commissions only work when they have a mandate and a mechanism. This one has neither. That leaves schools and athletes navigating a legal minefield with no map.
What Needs to Happen Now
This isn’t a time for celebration. It’s a time for serious, coordinated work. To protect athletes, we need:
Immediate federal guidance on Title IX and athlete compensation. The Department of Education must get ahead of this before we face another generation of litigation.
Clear interim rules from the NCAA or the new commission. Athletes need to know what’s allowed, what’s not, and where to go when something breaks.
Unified standards for collectives and boosters. The current system rewards rule-bending and secrecy. That won’t last.
A real voice for athletes at the table. Not after the fact. Now.
We can’t repeat the patchwork chaos of the post-2011 era. Too much is at stake.
If this is a new chapter in college sports, then we owe it to the players to make sure they aren’t the ones paying for everyone else’s confusion.
EXHIBIT A
Private equity isn’t flirting with college sports anymore—it’s in. Elevate’s new $500 million initiative is pumping institutional capital directly into athletic departments. Reports are that two, eight-figure deals have been penned with Power 4 schools. More deals are expected by football season, and sovereign wealth funds are reportedly watching closely. But as money floods in, a legal question emerges: What happens to the $20 million “salary cap” tied to the House v. NCAA settlement? In pro leagues like the NFL, rising revenues lead to rising salaries. Why should college athletics be different—especially now that schools are paying athletes directly? If private money boosts athletic department budgets, athletes may argue they’re entitled to a greater share. Structurally, these are private credit deals, not ownership stakes, due to nonprofit constraints. But the outcome is the same: more capital, more pressure. If the cap doesn't move with the money, it could become the next battleground in the fight over athlete compensation
Even more alarming is the pressure cooker this model creates for the institutions and how they will respond. The receipt of money by institutions to support athletics has always been in the form of a gift. Elevate’s money is anything but a gift. It is an investment for which they expect a return. The bigger the investment, the bigger the expected return. The focus on profitability will inevitably result in academic priorities to be compromised when the only focus will be on winning and returns.
EXHIBIT B
The NIL Go clearinghouse launched with fanfare this week. But without key stakeholders. Created by the power conferences and Deloitte, it excluded athlete collectives, state attorneys general, and the very athletes whose deals it now aims to regulate. The clearinghouse is now making judgments about “fair market value” without input from those most impacted, raising serious antitrust concerns. Can an unaccountable entity legally block a deal based on its own valuation? The platform’s rules took effect June 7, days before this week’s formal launch, and confusion reigns: must athletes retroactively submit deals? Meanwhile, conferences have asked schools to waive their right to sue, but athletes and states aren’t bound by that. If challenged, this house of cards may not hold up in court.
ON THE DOCKET
As with most others, I’m watching progress of the proposed SCORE and SPORTS Acts, legislation designed to codify key parts of the House v. NCAA settlement. Designed to empower the NCAA and a new Collegiate Sports Commission to enforce NIL rules, cap compensation, and preempt state laws, the benefit to student-athletes remains unclear. As it stands, these proposals appear to prioritize institutional control over individual rights. We’ll be watching closely to see whether lawmakers truly protect the athletes they claim to serve—or simply protect the status quo under the banner of reform.
FOOTNOTES
“The NCAA feels like it’s hanging on by a thread. They’ve struggled to keep up with NIL, there’s no real leadership, and no one’s stepped up to guide the sport through all this change. At this point, a college football commissioner feels inevitable. And a big part of the problem… The NCAA still won’t call athletes what they really are — employees.” @AdamBreneman81
