Weekly Column: NIL Governance Demands a New Kind of Commissioner

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines the growing governance gap in college athletics and why NIL demands a new commissioner model.

College sports now require a new commissioner model.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

Name, image, and likeness (NIL) and the transfer portal have accelerated the professionalization of college sports, particularly in men’s basketball and football. While elements of college athletics have long had commercial aspects through television and apparel deals, those revenues were traditionally distributed toward operational costs, educational programs, and scholarships. NIL and the transfer portal have fundamentally shifted that model.

The difficulty is that NIL and the transfer portal have created a fully commercial marketplace without a central regulator and/or even a common set of rules, exposing a governance gap in college athletics. State-by-state laws, conference policies, and school-level decisions are driving inconsistency, competitive imbalance, and an NIL arms race. The President’s Executive Order provides a clear a pathway to what needs to occur to balance the field and make sure parity is a top priority in college sports.

However, the NCAA remains education-focused and is not built for contract oversight, financial valuation, or commercial enforcement. From a legislative perspective, NIL was never intended to be administered by educational institutions or even a centralized private entity. It was designed as a market-based opportunity, primarily through social media, for athletes to monetize their personal brands, not the pay-for-play system it has become.

The College Sports Commission (CSC) is also ill-equipped with sufficient decision-making authority, rules, or enforcement power to level the playing field among colleges. There have also been numerous reports that the CSC has been unable to keep up with the volume of deals it must review, creating opportunity for impropriety and a widening of the governance gap. This volume challenge underscores a deeper issue: the system is too large and too fast-moving for a decentralized review body.

U.S. Congress is unlikely to solve the disparity in rules and enforcement because federal intervention faces political hurdles and constitutional limits, including anti-commandeering principles highlighted in the Supreme Court’s Murphy v. NCAA decision. As a result, no single entity currently has the authority, expertise, or jurisdiction to regulate NIL or the transfer portal consistently across top programs. The CSC reflects movement toward coordination, but it lacks independence, uniform authority, and true enforcement power.

College sports now require a new commissioner model. A private, Power Conference-driven commissioner would oversee NIL rules, enforcement standards, and commercial governance outside the NCAA. This concept has also surfaced in a recent interview conducted by the author with super-agent Leigh Steinberg, reflecting growing recognition that the current system lacks centralized leadership. This role could initially complement the CSC, separating rulemaking from enforcement, or ultimately replace it with a centralized system. The model would depend on voluntary, but binding participation by major conferences and schools, likely tied to shared revenue streams and access to top-tier competition.

There are significant risks in any model, but there is arguably more risk in maintaining the status quo. Coordinated rulemaking among conferences raises antitrust concerns, particularly around restricting compensation and limiting market competition. At the same time, the absence of coordination fuels instability and competitive imbalance. This tension may ultimately require a limited Congressional antitrust safe harbor, but in the near term it underscores the need for collective agreement among participating institutions.

There is also concern that increased centralized control could strengthen arguments that athletes are employees under existing legal tests, particularly where compensation structures and enforcement mechanisms become more formalized. Title IX (prevents sex-based discrimination) presents an additional layer of complexity. Any structured compensation or revenue-sharing framework must still comply with federal obligations at the institutional level, even if broader NIL governance becomes more centralized. The reality is that the Power conferences are already operating with increasing autonomy, signaling a shift toward a quasi-professional league structure. The question is not whether college sports will continue to evolve commercially, but whether governance will evolve fast enough to manage it effectively.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the Chief Entrepreneur Officer, Founder & Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing entertainment, media, and sports clients in contractual, intellectual property, and dealmaking matters. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.