What universities should expect as they prepare for arbitration before the College Sports Commission

College athletics is about to witness something it has never seen before: a contested arbitration proceeding under the regulatory framework established by the House settlement. Recent reports indicate that eighteen University of Nebraska football student-athletes are likely headed towards the first arbitration hearing involving the College Sports Commission (“CSC”), arising from the CSC’s rejection of more than $1 million in proposed third party NIL agreements. Specifically, the CSC allegedly rejected the NIL deals because they violated the prohibition on “warehousing” NIL rights, whereby a third-party (reportedly Nebraska’s multimedia rights partner in this case) purchases a student-athlete’s NIL rights without providing “reasonable specificity of the NIL activation” (e.g., the student-athlete’s obligations, timing and use of the student-athlete’s NIL) in the contract.¹

This case carries significant implications. It will be the first contested arbitration to test the CSC’s enforcement authority and the boundaries of permissible NIL deal structures. As other student-athletes (and their institutions) confront similar scrutiny of third-party NIL deals and consider whether to pursue arbitration, the Nebraska matter offers a timely illustration of how CSC proceedings may unfold in practice and what universities should expect if disputes proceed to a hearing. For many institutions, this process will feel unfamiliar—particularly when compared to traditional NCAA infractions proceedings or litigation in court. But arbitration is not new to the sports industry, and universities can draw meaningful lessons from other established arbitration contexts.

CSC arbitration may be faster, but it won’t be simpler

For universities accustomed to the NCAA’s slower, infractions processes, the CSC’s arbitration framework represents a fundamental structural shift in resolution timelines. The CSC’s Model Procedural Timetable—set forth at the end of the Arbitration Rules and Procedures for Disputes with Member Institution Participants Concerning CSC Determinations²—imposes a series of tightly compressed deadlines designed to conclude an arbitration within a 45 day period, subject only to limited extensions where an arbitrator finds good cause.

In practical terms, the timetable condenses what would ordinarily take months in a typical commercial arbitration context or NCAA infractions proceeding into a matter of weeks, with front loaded obligations that begin almost immediately upon commencement of the case. Institutions may be required to complete document production approximately 23 days after serving document requests, and as little as five days after an arbitrator resolves any production disputes—while simultaneously preparing and producing privilege logs. Just 10 days later, schools must submit comprehensive pre hearing memoranda, often encompassing all supporting evidence, witness statements, and expert materials that will form the core of the arbitration record.

This sequencing will present serious practical challenges for institutional legal and athletic departments and requires forethought for parties seeking to challenge CSC determinations. At a minimum, by the time the arbitrator is appointed, parties should have already identified, collected, and organized their key documents. Routine data collections—such as phone records, financial data, or communications involving third parties—can take weeks to process before any responsiveness or privilege review even begins. If these deadlines are enforced strictly, or only modestly extended, institutions challenging CSC determinations will face significant operational and legal strain, with limited opportunity to digest newly produced information, resolve lingering discovery disputes, or refine legal and factual arguments before the matter proceeds rapidly to hearing and final award.

The accelerated timetable magnifies the institution’s burden of proof

One of the most consequential features of the CSC’s arbitration process is that the burden of proof rests squarely on the institution. Under the governing rules, a university challenging a CSC determination must affirmatively demonstrate that the Commission’s findings or the penalties imposed should be overturned or modified. Mere disagreement with the CSC’s conclusions is insufficient; the institution must prove its position by a preponderance of the evidence—and must do so within the confines of an expedited, tightly constrained process.

In many cases, institutions will have little choice but to rely on expert testimony. On issues such as NIL valuation, market comparability, or financial analysis, expert opinions may be the only meaningful way for a school to carry its evidentiary burden. While the CSC arbitration rules expressly contemplate the use of expert evidence, the compressed timetable effectively requires universities to identify, retain, and prepare experts almost immediately after a CSC determination issues, often before the institution has fully assessed the scope of the evidentiary record it will be permitted to present.

Compounding the challenge, the rules do not contemplate phased expert disclosures, rebuttal reports, or deposition based testing of expert opinions—procedural tools that are commonly available even in streamlined commercial arbitration. As a result, expert analyses must be developed quickly and largely in isolation, with limited opportunity for refinement once the case is underway. When combined with the institution side burden of proof, this structure makes CSC arbitration far less forgiving of late stage course corrections and places a premium on advance preparation, internal coordination, and expert readiness well before a dispute formally arises.

Arbitrators are independent neutrals, not industry insiders

For universities accustomed to the NCAA infractions process, the CSC arbitration framework represents another meaningful departure. Traditionally, the NCAA Committee on Infractions has included individuals with direct experience in athletics administration or compliance, bringing institutional familiarity—and, at times, shared norms—to the decision making process. CSC arbitrators, by contrast, are commercial arbitrators. They are expected to function as independent neutral adjudicators, applying the governing rules to the evidentiary record presented, much like they would in their complex commercial arbitration practice. This shift places a premium on disciplined advocacy and evidentiary rigor, rather than appeals to historical precedent or broader policy considerations. Universities should therefore expect arbitrators to focus closely on the written record, the internal coherence of the parties’ legal theories, and the credibility of the evidence offered in support of those positions.

CSC arbitrations will reward institutional readiness, not reactive defense

Perhaps the most important takeaway for universities is that CSC arbitration is not well suited to reactive defense strategies. The combination of compressed timelines, limited discovery, expert driven proof, and finality means that institutions are often litigating on the strength—or weakness—of decisions and documentation created long before a dispute formally arises.

In this environment, institutional readiness becomes a meaningful differentiator. Universities that have invested in clear NIL governance frameworks, consistent and contemporaneous documentation practices, and early coordination among legal, compliance, finance, and athletics leadership will be better positioned if they elect to challenge a CSC determination in arbitration. Advance consideration of potential expert support—particularly on issues such as valuation, comparability, or financial analysis—can also prove critical, given the limited time available to retain and prepare experts once a dispute is underway. These preparatory steps can materially affect an institution’s ability to overturn a CSC’s determination in an expedited arbitral forum.

By contrast, institutions that view arbitration as an opportunity to “build the record later” may find themselves constrained by a process designed to move quickly to final resolution, with little tolerance for evidentiary gaps or late stage strategic adjustments. Universities that recognize this dynamic early will be better equipped to assess how to best challenge a CSC determination in arbitration.