The CSC Gets a Crash Course in College Sports Politics

Less than a month into its existence, the College Sports Commission (CSC) - the new enforcement body created as part of the House v. NCAA settlement - is already walking back some of its first major policy decisions. If you’ve followed college athletics for any amount of time, you won’t be surprised why.

Faced with pressure from attorneys, collectives, conferences, and even the specter of potential litigation, the CSC has quickly reversed course on its initial stance toward booster-backed collectives, which are organizations that have become cornerstones of NIL compensation since 2021. The key issue? Whether these collectives, created for the explicit purpose of funneling money to athletes, qualify as having a “valid business purpose.”

The CSC initially said no, and in doing so denied dozens of NIL deals submitted for approval. However, it didn’t take long before legal threats followed, prompting an about-face. Now, collectives will be evaluated just like any other business.

Welcome to the job, CSC. You’ve just been initiated.

A New Sheriff, Same Old Town

The CSC was introduced to clean up a chaotic NIL landscape, or at least to bring structure to a system where the NCAA had lost nearly all authority. With power conferences taking the reins after years of criticism aimed at the NCAA, the CSC was designed as a third-party enforcer - a clearinghouse (via NIL Go) to vet athlete deals and ensure they comply with basic standards like falling within a reasonable pay range or serving a legitimate business function.

But, it turns out that defining a “legitimate” business purpose is as politically fraught as anything else in college sports.

The CSC’s early approach of treating collectives more skeptically than typical businesses quickly drew ire. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the House case, led by Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman, fired off a strongly worded letter warning that the CSC’s interpretation was inconsistent with the settlement itself. Behind closed doors, several collectives were reportedly preparing lawsuits of their own. Public backlash followed, and not wanting to spark a full-scale revolt less than a month in, the CSC backed off.

Growing Pains Were Inevitable

To be fair, this was always going to happen.

The CSC is brand new. Its very existence is a product of compromise between courts, conferences, and schools desperate to avoid further antitrust exposure. No one expected it to get everything right, right out of the gate.

Learning what rules work - and which don’t - is part of any new system’s growth. You test boundaries. You get pushback. You recalibrate. That’s what the CSC is doing now, and it should be applauded for having the flexibility to make adjustments rather than doubling down.

But the swiftness and intensity of the blowback underscore how much scrutiny this body will face, not only from collectives and schools but from lawyers, courts, and a public that is deeply skeptical of anything resembling old NCAA behavior.

Speaking of the NCAA…They’re Enjoying the Break

While the CSC takes its lumps in the national spotlight, one figure who’s probably enjoying this moment is NCAA President Charlie Baker.

For once, the pitchforks aren’t pointed at the NCAA itself. After years of criticism, court losses, and calls for dissolution, the NCAA has effectively outsourced the most controversial enforcement tasks to a new body. And now, the CSC is absorbing the same sort of heat for inconsistencies, confusing guidance, and what some view as anti-athlete bias that used to be the NCAA’s full-time burden.

Let’s be clear: the NCAA helped design the CSC, and its fingerprints are still on the rulebook. But in the media cycle? For now, Baker’s out of the line of fire.

What Happens Now?

This latest change is significant because it reopens the door for collectives to fund athletes in ways that don’t count against a school’s revenue-sharing cap under the House settlement. While schools can now pay athletes directly, they still face limits of about $20.5 million per year in shared revenue. Collectives offer a workaround.

With the new guidance, collectives that engage in “for-profit” activity - think athlete appearances, autograph sessions, and merchandise sales - will now be judged like any other business. As long as the arrangement provides a good or service to the public, it can clear CSC scrutiny.

This effectively creates a “soft cap” on athlete compensation rather than a hard one, and as SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey hinted, may be more sustainable than trying to regulate compensation like it’s 2005.

Still, the decision raises new questions. Will this embolden collectives to push the limits again? How will NIL Go’s algorithms and Deloitte’s compensation ranges hold up under pressure? And what happens when the next gray area gets challenged?

Final Thoughts: Learning on the Fly

The CSC’s early stumble is a reality check, but not a failure. Building a new enforcement framework from scratch was always going to be messy. The fact that they’ve already had to revise guidance is not a weakness, it’s a sign of adaptation.

That said, this episode also illustrates how precarious the new college sports infrastructure really is. The line between legitimacy and litigation is razor-thin. And the stakeholders - schools, lawyers, collectives, and athletes - aren’t afraid to challenge authority, especially if it threatens their financial interests.

The CSC’s challenge now is to strike a balance: firm enough to maintain credibility, flexible enough to survive legal scrutiny, and fair enough to avoid falling into the same traps that led to the NCAA’s collapse in influence.

One thing’s for sure: no one is getting a grace period in the new era of college athletics.

Not even the new guys.