Special Master Denies Motion to Exclude MMRs and Brand Sponsors from "Associated Entity" Definition under NCAA House Settlement; CSC Updates Enforcement Policy

Special Master Refuses to Exclude MMRs and Brand Sponsors Under House Settlement

As schools, athletes, and other entities continue to navigate the boundaries of the House Settlement (In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW), at least one recent decision made clear a court’s position on what qualifies as an Associated Entity under the settlement. As noted previously, the College Sports Commission (CSC) sent out a rules reminder in January regarding Associated Entities. Under the House Settlement, these entities include those

that [are] or [were] known . . . to the athletics department staff of a Member Institution, to exist, in significant part, for the purpose of (i) promoting or supporting particular Member Institution’s intercollegiate athletics program or student-athletes; and/or (2) creating or identifying name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) opportunities (i.e., arrangements through which student-athletes receive compensation for the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness) solely for a particular Member Institution’s student-athletes.

A central concern underlying the House Settlement is that schools and affiliated entities could use NIL deals to circumvent the cap on annual payments to student-athletes. One question that has been hotly contested is whether multimedia rights companies (MMRs) and third-party brand sponsors qualify as Affiliated Entities. A magistrate judge’s opinion in the House Settlement litigation provided further guidance on the Affiliated Entities assessment.

On April 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion for: (1) an order declaring that multimedia rights companies (MMRs) are not “Associated Entities or Individuals” as defined in the House Settlement and (2) an order declaring that third-party brand sponsors are not “Associated Entities or Individuals” as defined in the House Settlement.

Plaintiffs argued that the CSC’s review of MMR deals amounted to “overreaching [its] enforcement efforts well beyond what the [House] Settlement permits.” They contended that the “Associated Entities or Individuals” definition was intended to capture only boosters and collectives that “simply want to support a particular college or university by paying athletes,” not commercial entities like MMRs, and was designed to give the NCAA “authority to regulate only a tiny subset of NIL agreements.” Plaintiffs similarly argued that third-party brand sponsors are not Associated Entities, and that the CSC has improperly claimed authority to investigate and regulate these NIL agreements.

In response, Defendants raised several arguments. First, Defendants contended that the Settlement mandates arbitration, not the Special Master, as the forum for resolving disputes over whether specific entities qualify as Associated Entities or Individuals. Second, Defendants argued that MMRs and third-party brand sponsors could fall within the definition because the Settlement “expressly grants authority to scrutinize transactions involving any entity that ‘has assisted in the recruitment or retention of prospective or current student-athletes’” under subsection (d) of the definition — regardless of whether the entity supports a particular school. Third, Defendants warned that categorically excluding MMRs and brand sponsors would open an “easy end-run” around the Settlement's cap by permitting schools to funnel unlimited payments through entities wholly immunized from CSC review.

On June 25, 2026, Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins, the special master in the matter, denied Plaintiffs’ motion, stating it “will not categorically declare MMRs as not Associated Entities.” The Court noted at the outset that “MMR” is not a legally defined term. The court reasoned that it is “possible that some MMRs do fall within the term,” noting that MMRs have, for example, “created institution-specific entities housed on college campuses that generate NIL deals for specific students at a particular campus,” “placed their employees directly in a campus’s athletic department office to assist in locating deals for hopeful recruits, and provided money upfront to athletes and found a supporting deal thereafter.” The Court concluded that these scenarios “require a fact-intensive inquiry” and that it “would circumvent the [House Settlement] to declare that all MMRs are not Associated Entities without allowing Defendants to conduct that factual review.” The Court further noted that there was no evidence in the record that the parties intended MMRs to be excluded from the definition, as MMRs were not specifically discussed at the hearings before Judge Wilken or in her final approval opinion.

The court also held that third-party brand sponsors could be Associated Entities, reasoning that Judge Claudia Wilken “left open the possibility that [ ] third-party brand sponsors could fall within the definition” and “questioned whether [ ] third-party brand sponsors would engage in behavior the [House Settlement] . . . seeks to prohibit."

The Special Master's order expressly provides that the parties may appeal the decision to Judge Wilken. According to Yahoo! Sports reporter Ross Dellenger, plaintiffs intend to do so.

CSC Updates Enforcement Policy 

On June 23, the CSC sent a memo to all Division I Institutions and Conferences providing information on updates to its enforcement policy, a change to its Range of Compensation Model, and commentary regarding “consulting agreements” between institutions and player agents.

First, the CSC announced that beginning on July 1, 2026, the CSC will not subject deals valued between $600–$15,000 to Range of Compensation (RoC) review unless and until a student-athlete has exceeded $50,000 in Associated deals in an academic year. This updates the prior policy that exempted deals up to $2,500 from RoC review unless and until a student-athlete reached $15,000 in Associated deals. RoC review evaluates whether an NIL deal’s compensation exceeds the range of what similarly situated individuals receive. If a deal’s compensation is within the RoC, the CSC determines the deal is commensurate with market rates; if not, the CSC conducts additional holistic review.

Second, the CSC announced that beginning in early July, the RoC Model will shift from “confidence intervals” to “prediction intervals,” which “account for the natural variability in how similarly situated student-athletes are compensated” and are more generous to student-athletes. Until this change is implemented, the CSC will postpone action on borderline Associated deals “in the interest of giving student-athletes the most generous possible evaluation of their deals.”

Third, the CSC addressed reports that player agents are seeking compensation from schools through NIL “consulting agreements” to route money to student-athletes or supplement representation fees. The CSC will review such “institution-agent financial agreement[s]” for violations of NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1, noting these agreements “present serious concerns about cap circumvention.” The CSC is also investigating reports that institution-affiliated entities are paying agent representation fees on behalf of student-athletes to circumvent the cap.

What Higher Education Institutions Should Do Now

In light of the Special Master’s ruling and the CSC's updated enforcement policy, higher education institutions should consider the following steps:

• Review MMR Relationships. Institutions should evaluate the specific activities of their MMR partners — particularly where the MMR has created institution-specific entities on campus, embedded employees within the athletics department, or provided upfront payments to athletes in advance of securing a deal. These are the types of conduct the Court identified as potentially falling within the Associated Entity definition.
• Assess Brand Sponsor NIL Arrangements. Institutions should review any arrangements in which the athletics department has facilitated or procured NIL agreements between third-party brand sponsors and student-athletes. The Court declined to categorically exclude brand sponsors from the Associated Entity definition, so institutions should assess whether their involvement in arranging sponsor-athlete NIL deals could subject those transactions to CSC review.
• Monitor the Appeal. The Special Master’s order is subject to appeal to Judge Wilken, and plaintiffs have indicated they intend to appeal. Institutions should monitor this proceeding closely, as Judge Wilken’s ruling could alter the scope of the Associated Entity definition and the CSC’s enforcement authority.
• Audit Agent Consulting Agreements. Institutions should audit any existing financial agreements with player agents, assess compliance with NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1, and be aware that the CSC is investigating reports that institution-affiliated entities are paying agent representation fees on behalf of student-athletes to circumvent the cap.

If your institution has questions about CSC compliance or NIL deal structuring, please contact one of the lawyers below or your regular Crowell contact.