Overview
- The NCAA and the Power Five filed a formal response Monday arguing the House settlement requires arbitrators, not a judge, to decide disputes over the College Sports Commission’s approval of name, image and likeness deals.
- At the center is whether multimedia rights firms like Learfield and PlayFly count as school‑linked "associated entities" whose athlete deals must go through the CSC’s NIL Go review, which defendants say a court exemption would gut by enabling an end run around the pay‑for‑play ban.
- CSC CEO Bryan Seeley, in a declaration attached to the filing, said some schools and affiliated vendors built "NIL pools" by shifting sponsorship dollars to athletes and that MMR staff embedded in athletic departments helped steer or guarantee deals to recruit or keep players.
- The fight grew from proposals for 18 Nebraska football players whose PlayFly offers worth more than $1 million were rejected, and a magistrate is set to hear the broader motion on May 27 in San Jose.
- To counter claims of overreach, the CSC reported 21,025 approvals versus 711 rejections through February 2026 and said most deals are cleared within days.