WASHINGTON DC, June 8, 2026 — A neutral arbitrator has issued a final determination in a case involving third-party NIL deals made with two University of Georgia student-athletes.
The deals in question had initially not been cleared by the College Sports Commission (CSC) on March 6, 2026 as they fell outside the accepted Range of Compensation (RoC). However, on May, 8, 2026, while the deals were pending arbitration, the CSC updated its RoC model – as it regularly does and has done since its inception – to incorporate data from additional cleared deals. That updated dataset determined that both athletes’ deals now fell within the permissible compensation range and therefore – since final adjudication of the deals was still pending – the CSC cleared the deals in question. The CSC notified the arbitrator of this development on May 15, 2026, and moved to dismiss the arbitration as there was no longer a dispute over those deals.
On June 5, 2026, the arbitrator issued a final decision in the matter. That decision confirmed that the deals may proceed as originally submitted following the CSC’s clearance of the deals, and denied the University of Georgia’s request to intervene in the proceeding and to recover attorneys’ fees and costs it incurred. Though the arbitrator ended the proceeding because he agreed with the CSC’s position that following the deals’ clearance there was no live controversy between the parties, he denied the CSC’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Arbitration Rule 11(c), holding that this rule does not allow the CSC to dismiss a claim when the claimant objects.
“As more deals are submitted and cleared, we regularly update our dataset to ensure that student-athletes receive the NIL compensation they deserve,” said Bryan Seeley, CEO of the College Sports Commission. “We are committed to applying the rules fairly and to continuously refining the tools we use to do so. When additional data showed these deals were within range, we acted immediately to clear them.”
The CSC’s RoC model, developed in partnership with Deloitte, updates and evolves on a regular basis by adding cleared, non-associated deals above $600 to ensure it is accurately reflecting the current market at that moment in time. This process has been running since the settlement was implemented. These periodic updates to the model strengthen the CSC’s ability to make accurate, data-driven determinations over time.
The CSC does not now and does not intend in the future to regularly re-review prior decisions or reopen deals that were previously reviewed and resolved. These deals were re-reviewed because they were still in arbitration and pending final decision. Therefore, in this specific case, the CSC chose to apply the new model to the deals and end the need for arbitration.
The arbitrator determined that the University of Georgia’s request to intervene in the arbitration process — which sought to litigate broader institutional questions — had no basis in the House settlement or the arbitration rules. The University of Georgia’s request to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs was also denied, consistent with the settlement agreement and the arbitration rules, which provide that member institutions bear their own arbitration costs.
The decision reinforces the integrity of the neutral arbitration process created under the House settlement. The arbitrator’s handling of this matter — including the denial of procedural attempts to expand the arbitration’s scope — affirms that the process functions as intended.
Media Contact
Kenny Thompson, Jr.
press@collegesportscommission.org