The College Sports Commission investigations are underway at multiple Power Four schools over alleged attempts to bypass revenue-sharing limits and name, image and likeness rules, according to documents, interviews and people familiar with the process.
- Between five and 10 Power Four programs are facing longer-term probes.
- Some under review are College Football Playoff contenders, and CSC personnel have conducted in-person interviews on campuses.
- Records show the focus is on potential cap evasion and NIL-related violations involving schools, athletes and third parties.
- The work mirrors the NBA’s review of third-party arrangements used to dodge salary caps, with the CSC scrutinizing deals that may help programs skirt revenue-share limits.
- Sources say a proposed CSC participation agreement that would expand enforcement authority is unlikely to be adopted.
- No long-term case has concluded, and some schools want actions before the transfer portal window opens in January to deter violations.
In an Aug. 20 memo to university leaders and athletic departments, the CSC’s Department of Investigations said it is pursuing “multiple, longer-term investigations” into possible cap evasion and NIL abuses, and invited staff with knowledge of recruiting, agent conduct and questionable proposals to come forward.
The cases mark a major test of the CSC’s ability to regulate college football’s revenue-sharing model as roster spending has surged well beyond the roughly $21.5 million per-school benchmark established in the House settlement.
People across the sport said CSC investigators have visited campuses to interview personnel tied to active cap-evasion inquiries. There is no set timeline for resolutions.
CSC investigations FAQ
- How many programs are under investigation? Five to 10 Power Four programs, including multiple CFP contenders.
- What is being examined? Potential revenue-sharing cap evasion and NIL violations involving schools, athletes and third parties.
- How are probes conducted? Campus visits and in-person interviews.
- Any cases finished? None of the longer-term matters has concluded.
- What complicates enforcement? The participation agreement intended to bolster CSC authority has not been signed by schools.
Under the House settlement, schools can allocate about $21.5 million to student-athletes in 2026-27 through revenue sharing. Third-party NIL payments must pass CSC review to confirm they fall within fair-market ranges.
In July, the CSC exempted deals from $600 to $15,000 from compensation-range review if an athlete has earned $50,000 or less in associated deals. Above that threshold, full review applies.
Prior reporting shows several football rosters approaching $40 million to $50 million in spending, which forces schools to source significant third-party dollars while staying within CSC guidelines.
There is no overall spending cap if deals are filed and approved as fair-market value through the CSC’s process.
From July 1 to Aug. 31, the CSC’s NIL GO platform reported clearing $227.25 million in deals and rejecting $67.08 million that did not meet fair-market or House settlement standards.
Since launch, NIL GO has approved $582.5 million and denied $156.9 million in agreements.
When payments are delayed or denied in NIL GO, some teams look for alternative pathways to honor promised compensation, sources said, adding that not all questionable arrangements are being flagged and that some athletes are paid despite not delivering contracted obligations.
The CSC’s enforcement push has been hampered by the lack of a signed participation agreement from the 68 Power Four institutions.
That document, envisioned as a key pillar of the House settlement, would have strengthened investigatory powers, limited legal challenges and prevented schools from aiding outside lawsuits, including actions by state attorneys general.
Momentum to secure signatures faded, and multiple conferences did not align simultaneously, leaving the CSC contending with familiar obstacles that the NCAA faced.
Schools often engage outside counsel, delay responses and resist requests for information.
Amid mounting pressure to keep pace competitively, some program officials privately question whether penalties with real consequences will materialize absent stronger authority.
One Power Four general manager said the enforcement dilemma creates a narrow line between performance expectations and compliance.
Previous reporting has identified CSC inquiries at LSU, Kansas and Nebraska.
LSU’s matter, which did not involve football, was resolved in February.
The CSC prevailed in an arbitration case after Nebraska challenged the denial of multi-million-dollar packages for 18 football players.
Those episodes are distinct from the ongoing, longer-term probes.
Records obtained from North Carolina show the school communicated with the CSC about a third-party NIL company, with questions sent to more than two dozen football and basketball staffers.
The school reported that basketball GM Jim Tanner and football GM Michael Lombardi had contact with the firm, and Lombardi said he used its software for recruiting.
Lombardi resigned Sept. 3 amid a separate internal human resources investigation.
College Sports Commission investigations and next steps
ACC commissioner Jim Phillips recently said the CSC and NCAA need sufficient authority to enforce the rules members agreed to.
He noted improved coordination over the past year but acknowledged gaps remain without full enforcement tools.
For Hawaii fans tracking national developments that shape recruiting and roster building across the sport, the outcome of these College Sports Commission investigations could influence how programs nationwide, including those that schedule nonconference games with island teams, manage NIL and revenue-sharing in the months ahead.
One Response