CSC Boasts "Touchdown" Results Data

CSC boasts "Touchdown" results data ....while the Collectives Association "throw a yellow flag". So....the question begs....how effective has the CSC been since the July 1 ruling on Revenue Sharing for Student Athletes? 

1. The July 1 ruling to provide Revenue Sharing to Student-Athletes clearly changed the landscape of College Sports. In conjunction to this July 1 ruling, the CSC were formed (with Deloitte) which now required Student-Athletes to submit for approval any NIL deal valued at > $600.00. What were the intent of this ruling? To eliminate the prior NIL "pay for play" arena in which there were little or no justification for the endorsement payments. 

2. To be clear, the MAJORITY of a student-athletes total NIL value is based on REVENUE SHARE. Think salary cap. These values are becoming well defined based on ratings/rankings/performance both for those on a current NCAA roster choosing the portal route, as well as for incoming Freshman. The additional value to a Student-Athlete, on top of the Revenue Share value ...is their Endorsement Value. This is closely related to the Student-Athletes social media following where brands will pay for the Student-Athlete to endorse their product via social media, appearances, commercials, etc. 

3. Since the July 1 ruling, these are the numbers that the CSC boasts" at its first reporting period Sept 1 2025 

*Since July 1, there have been 32,794 registered users on the platform, with 2262 weekly users (1658 Student-athletes the remainder Institutional Users). 

* There have been 8359 NIL Deals submitted by users with 6009 approved and several pending, while only 6% were rejected ..resulting in a claimed 94% deal clearance rate

* The total amount cleared for NIL Deals were originally reported at $79.8m but were reduced to $35.6m....which would bring the average NILdeal down to approximately $5802. 

4. The Collective Association has provided its own set of statistics on deals submitted by its members:

* The Collective Association claim the NIL Go platform as being "lacking clarity, accuracy, and speed": 384 deals submitted, 120 rejected, 47 required additional information before adjudication, and 192 were awaiting a response. 

So what is the conclusion? The answer is most likely that Time Will Tell. One thing is for certain, the NIL landscape is still in its infancy stage... with more changes and modifications forthcoming.  

Don Wolf