The already-complicated world of NIL took another sharp turn this week when seven major Texas universities were urged by the state’s attorney general not to sign the new College Sports Commission (CSC) participant agreement. On Nov. 25, Texas AG Ken Paxton sent a letter to Texas Tech, the University of Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Houston, SMU, and TCU, warning that the agreement raised significant legal and structural concerns for the state.
“As the chief legal officer for the State of Texas, whose duties include providing advice, counsel, and legal representation to Texas public universities, I am particularly interested and gravely concerned by the wide-ranging implications entering into such an agreement portends for our state and its institutions,” the letter reads.
That line alone captures the gravity of what’s unfolding. This isn’t your typical administrative memo about compliance updates. This is the top legal authority in the state telling every major public athletic brand in Texas—plus two private institutions—that the deal forming the backbone of the new NIL governance model may violate state law, limit institutional rights, and create unchecked authority for the CSC.
The Stakes Behind the CSC Agreement
To understand why this matters, it helps to know what the CSC agreement actually does. The 11-page document would bind schools in the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 to the terms of the House v. NCAA settlement and to CSC enforcement decisions. It effectively creates a centralized enforcement body—something the NCAA has tried but struggled to maintain—except this version requires schools to waive their rights to challenge CSC rulings in court.
That waiver alone was enough to raise eyebrows. But Paxton’s letter outlines a longer list of objections, including:
Schools could be penalized for cooperating with legal actions brought by others (such as athletes, representatives, or even the state itself).
The CSC would have sole discretion to impose fines or sanctions with little to no appeal process.
Schools must agree to follow future CSC policies sight unseen.
Fines and penalties come with no predetermined limits.
Participants cannot support or lobby for changes in federal, state, or local laws that would affect the agreement.
Mandatory contract language would require employees to comply with CSC rules.
Presidents, ADs, coaches, and other officials must certify full compliance each academic year.
Third-party agreements must include language compelling cooperation with CSC investigations.
Schools must suspend any official who fails to cooperate.
The agreement attempts to limit each participant’s compliance with state law.
That’s a sweeping list—one that goes far beyond typical athletic governance.
Texas Tech’s Early Resistance
The first sign of organized pushback actually came from Texas Tech before Paxton issued his letter. Cody Campbell, mega donor and chairman of the Texas Tech University System Board of Regents, made it clear Tech wouldn’t sign under the current terms.
Campbell argued the rules were not aligned with Texas law or university bylaws, writing, “We will eagerly and fully engage in conversation aimed at finding a legal and workable solution, and I will personally commit to facilitating such discussions.”
In other words, Texas Tech isn’t anti-CSC or anti-revenue-sharing—it just refuses to sign away institutional authority without clarity.
That stance helped set the stage for Paxton’s intervention.
Why Texas, Specifically, Is Pushing Back
Texas has invested heavily in NIL infrastructure. The state’s laws are more permissive than the NCAA’s former rules, and its flagship universities benefit from strong donor bases and collectives. The CSC agreement, as written, could override state law and restrict how schools participate in NIL markets—a major sticking point.
The AG’s argument is essentially:
If the CSC wants authority, it must operate within the legal framework of the state. Texas isn’t handing over unilateral control.
Whether other states echo this stance will be pivotal.
What the CSC Says It Is
The CSC describes itself as “the organization overseeing the new system that allows schools to share revenue directly with student-athletes and ensures that NIL deals made with student-athletes are fair and comply with the rules.” It is led by inaugural CEO Bryan Seeley, previously a top legal and operations executive at Major League Baseball.
According to its website, all current members of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC are participating in the new revenue-sharing model. That includes dozens of schools outside Texas that will move forward regardless of the dispute.
What Happens Next
This confrontation is bigger than Texas. It raises fundamental questions:
Can a national college sports model function if individual states refuse compliance?
Will the CSC adjust its agreement to avoid legal battles?
Could this result in multiple NIL governance tracks depending on state law?
In the short term, Texas schools are unlikely to sign anything until Paxton’s concerns are addressed. The CSC, meanwhile, needs broad participation to legitimize its role.
%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).jpg)
%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).png)
