Abstract

The first four papers mapped the enterprise’s structure: the buffer the Association supplied, the inverted holding pattern that lodged risk away from assets, and the cross-subsidy compact whose two sides — the payers’ refusal and the recipients’ squeeze — express the strain now driving events. This paper takes up the first of three pressure dimensions through which that strain works itself out: the attempt to reconstitute enforcement outside the Association in a new private body, the College Sports Commission. It argues that enforcement of restraints requires legitimacy, that legitimacy is available from only three sources — accretion, statute, and the consent of the governed — and that the new body possesses none of them in usable form. It holds the accretion of no tradition, having been created in 2025; it holds no statute, the federal accommodation having failed; and the consent it has sought to manufacture, through a participation agreement in which schools waive their right to challenge it, is the consent of intermediaries rather than of the athletes the restraints actually bind, and is fragile against state law besides. The paper reads the participation agreement as the visible substitute for the missing capital and therefore as the proof of the deficit, treats the “valid business purpose” test as a replacement for amateurism whose legal durability is being tested in compressed real time, and reads the recent arbitration victory as a contingent validation that the federal litigation over the scope of the scheme can undo. It closes by identifying the only two routes that could close the deficit — statutory authority and a bargained counterparty — and by showing why each is, for now, foreclosed.

1. From distribution to governance

The volume’s middle papers concerned the distribution of the enterprise’s resources: who pays the cross-subsidy and who receives it, who is carried and who is set down. This paper turns from distribution to governance — from the question of where the money goes to the question of who makes the rules and how those rules are made to stick. The turn is not a change of subject but a change of vantage on the same strain, because the conflict over distribution is what drove the powerful conferences to seize the governance of enforcement in the first place. Unable to win the rules they wanted within the Association’s one-institution-one-vote chambers, and unwilling to keep paying a compact whose return they no longer perceived, they took the core enforcement function out of the Association and placed it in a body they controlled. This paper is the close study of what happened when they did.

What happened, in brief, is that they discovered the difference between holding a function and being able to perform it. Paper One established the point in the abstract: the Association’s political buffer was not a document but an accretion of legitimacy, the residue of a century during which members treated its rules as binding because they always had been, and such legitimacy cannot be chartered into existence. Paper Two restated it as a matter of spent capital: the captive’s reserves of legal theory and accumulated legitimacy were exhausted, and a decapitalized buffer cannot pay the claims it was built to absorb. This paper supplies the empirical confirmation. The conferences built a new enforcement body, staffed it competently, equipped it with a clearinghouse and a tracking apparatus, and found that it could not reliably make its rulings hold — because the one thing they could not transfer to it by charter was the legitimacy that made enforcement possible at all.

The structural question the paper pursues is therefore not whether the new body is well run, which is beside the point, but where a private body exercising governing authority could possibly derive the legitimacy that authority requires. The answer determines whether the enforcement experiment can succeed in any hands, and the answer is unfavorable.

2. The argument in brief

The paper advances four claims. First, the enforcement of restraints over a contested activity requires legitimacy — a recognized title to bind — and legitimacy is available from exactly three sources: the accretion of tradition, the authority of a statute, and the consent of the governed. Second, the College Sports Commission holds none of the three in usable form: it has no tradition, having been created in 2025; it has no statute, the federal accommodation the conferences sought having failed; and the consent it has assembled is the consent of schools rather than of the athletes its restraints actually bind. Third, the participation agreement by which the body seeks to bind its members — a contract in which schools waive their right to challenge it — is the visible substitute for the missing accretion and statute, and its very existence is the proof of the deficit, because a body possessing legitimacy by tradition or law would not need to extract a contractual waiver to function. Fourth, the only routes that could close the deficit are the two the conferences have so far been unable or unwilling to take: securing a statute, which the legislative paralysis has blocked, or bargaining with a genuine counterparty representing the athletes, which would supply both consent and antitrust cover but which the conferences resist because it would require recognizing the athletes as the parties they are.

From these claims the paper hands the volume to its next pressure dimension. The reason a statute is needed, and the reason a narrower body’s restraints are more legally exposed than the broad Association’s were, is the antitrust paradox that Paper Six takes up; this paper establishes the legitimacy deficit, and the next establishes the legal exposure that the deficit leaves uncovered.

3. The architecture of the experiment

The enforcement experiment has a definite architecture, and its features are worth setting out because each was designed to do a job that the Association formerly did without machinery. The settlement permitted schools to pay athletes directly up to the per-school cap, and it sought to preserve some control over the payments that fall outside the cap — the third-party deals through which boosters and affiliated entities might otherwise route unlimited sums to athletes. To police those outside payments, the settlement created the College Sports Commission as a body separate from the Association, and equipped it with a clearinghouse, the platform known as NIL Go.

The clearinghouse operates by a threshold and a pair of tests. Third-party deals above a six-hundred-dollar floor must be submitted to the clearinghouse for approval; a deal judged excessive must be renegotiated, canceled, or appealed through arbitration, and an advisory-opinion process allows parties to test a proposed arrangement before committing to it. The two tests the clearinghouse applies are a “valid business purpose” requirement and a fair-market-value standard. The first is the more consequential: a deal satisfies the valid-business-purpose test only if it involves goods or services offered to the general public for profit, a definition that excludes payments dressed as endorsements but functioning as inducements. The machinery saw heavy early use; in its first reporting window, from June through August of 2025, the clearinghouse registered more than thirty-two thousand users. The body later added an enforcement channel of a different kind: an anonymous tip line, launched in October 2025, for the confidential reporting of suspected violations.

The architecture’s pivot is a category: the “associated entity.” The valid-business-purpose test bites only on payments from entities the scheme treats as bound by its scrutiny, and the contested question is which entities those are. When the Commission designated a school’s multimedia-rights partner an associated entity, it brought that partner’s deals with athletes within its review, and deals so designated are barred where they fail the tests. The whole reach of the enforcement scheme turns on how widely the associated-entity category extends, because the category determines which payments the clearinghouse may police and which flow freely outside it. This is the seam along which the experiment is now being contested, and the contest is the subject of Section 7. The point to carry forward is that the architecture, however elaborate, is only as effective as its legitimacy permits: a clearinghouse can register thirty-two thousand users and a tip line can collect reports, but neither can make a rejected party accept the rejection unless the body doing the rejecting holds a recognized title to bind.

4. The three sources of enforcement legitimacy

The recognized title to bind is what the classical study of authority calls legitimacy, and the relevant insight is that legitimacy is not a single thing but a small set of distinct sources, each grounding a different kind of authority. A body that governs may derive its title from tradition — from the settled fact that it has always governed and that its subjects have always treated its rules as binding. It may derive its title from law — from a statute or constitution that authorizes it to bind and specifies the terms. Or, in the private sphere, it may derive its title from consent — from the agreement of the governed to be bound, freely given and genuinely held. Tradition, law, and consent are the three wells from which governing authority is drawn, and a body that exercises governing functions without drawing on at least one of them is exercising power without title, which is to say it is issuing commands its subjects have no reason to obey beyond the force behind them.

The Association drew, for most of its history, from the first well. Its authority was traditional in the precise sense: members obeyed its rules because the rules had always bound, because membership had always carried submission, because the practice of treating the Association’s word as final was older than any current participant and woven into what it meant to belong to the enterprise. This traditional authority was the political buffer of Paper One, and it was strong precisely because it did not depend on anyone’s present consent or on any statute; it was simply the inherited condition of the enterprise. Where the traditional authority frayed — where members began to question whether the rules really bound — the Association supplemented it with the threat of penalty and with the legal theory of amateurism that gave its restraints a defensible form. But the foundation was tradition, and tradition is exactly the well that a body created in 2025 cannot draw from, because tradition is the one source of legitimacy that cannot be acquired quickly, established by charter, or purchased. It can only accumulate, and accumulation takes the kind of time the new body does not have.

The structural significance of the enforcement experiment is that it attempts to perform a traditional-authority function with a body that has no tradition, and must therefore find its legitimacy in one of the other two wells. It must draw on a statute or on consent, because it cannot draw on accretion. The rest of the paper examines its attempts to do so, and finds both wells, for the new body, either dry or poisoned.

5. The deficit on every axis

The new body’s legitimacy deficit is total, in the sense that it fails on each of the three sources at once.

Its failure on tradition is definitional and has been stated: a body created in 2025 has no accretion of settled obedience to draw upon, and the early record bears this out exactly as the absence of traditional authority would predict. The members did not treat the new body’s rules as binding because they always had been, for they never had been; they treated them as a new imposition to be tested. The well-documented early breakdown — members complying briefly and then hunting loopholes, encouraging athletes to challenge rejected deals, and balking at vesting the body with the power to punish them, as recounted in Paper One — is precisely the behavior of subjects who recognize no traditional title to bind them. They obeyed the Association out of inherited habit; they had no inherited habit of obeying its successor.

Its failure on statute is the failure of the legislative route the volume has tracked from the start. The conferences sought from Congress an accommodation that would have given the enforcement scheme legal authority and shielded it from challenge, and the effort stalled; no statute backs the scheme, and so the new body cannot draw legitimacy from law. This is the failed recapitalization of Paper Two, seen now from the legitimacy side: the statute would have supplied the legal-rational authority that the body lacks by tradition, and its absence leaves the body without that well too.

Its failure on consent is the most interesting and the least obvious, because the body has in fact obtained a great deal of consent — and the consent it has obtained does not solve its problem. The consent it has assembled is the consent of the schools, the institutional members who have agreed, under the competitive pressure of needing to field eligible teams, to operate within the scheme. But the restraints the scheme enforces do not bind the schools in the relevant sense; they bind the athletes, whose third-party deals are scrutinized, rejected, and barred. And the athletes have not consented. They are the governed — the parties whose conduct the restraints actually restrain — and a regime that holds the consent of the schools but not of the athletes holds the consent of intermediaries rather than of the governed. This is the structural heart of the consent failure: in the well of consent, the relevant consent is that of the party restrained, and the party restrained is precisely the party from whom the scheme has not obtained it. The schools may sign what they like; their signatures cannot legitimate restraints imposed on someone else.

The deficit is therefore complete. No tradition, because the body is new; no statute, because the legislation failed; and no genuine consent, because the consent obtained is the wrong party’s. A body exercising governing authority with none of the three sources of legitimacy is exercising power on the strength of its machinery and the competitive necessity that drives schools to comply — which is to say, on the strength of force and circumstance rather than title. Such authority can function for a time, but it is brittle, and its brittleness shows the moment a restrained party declines to accept a restraint and asks by what right it was imposed.

6. The participation agreement as manufactured consent

The new body has not been blind to its deficit, and its principal response to it is the clearest possible evidence that the deficit is real. The Commission circulated a participation agreement for its member institutions whose central feature is that schools would waive their right to challenge the body — surrendering, by contract, the standing to dispute its enforcement. The agreement is an attempt to manufacture by contract the binding that the Association possessed by tradition, to substitute an extracted waiver for the accretion the new body cannot claim.

The substitution is a tell. A body that held authority by tradition would not need its members to sign away their right to sue, because tradition already secured their submission; the Association never required such a waiver, because membership itself, by inheritance, carried the binding. A body that held authority by statute would not need the waiver either, because the law would supply the title. The new body needs the waiver precisely because it holds neither tradition nor statute, and the contract is the visible form of the missing capital — the manufactured stand-in for the legitimacy it cannot otherwise produce. The existence of the participation agreement is, in this sense, the proof of the thesis: a governing body reduced to extracting waivers is a body that has no other source of title to draw upon.

Manufactured consent of this kind is structurally inferior to the genuine article on three counts, and each count is a fault line along which the scheme may give way. It is inferior, first, because it is extracted under duress: schools agree to the waiver because the competitive necessity of fielding eligible teams leaves them no real choice, and consent given under such pressure is consent in form more than in substance, vulnerable to the argument that it was never freely held. It is inferior, second, because it binds only its signatories and reaches the actual governed not at all: even a freely signed school waiver cannot bind the athletes, who are not parties to it and whose restraints it cannot legitimate. And it is inferior, third, because it is fragile against law that the parties cannot contract around. The agreement raises questions of federal-versus-state authority and the preemption of state law, and implicates the interest of state attorneys general, because a contract among private parties cannot override a state statute that grants athletes rights the contract purports to waive. A waiver good against the signatory may be no good against the state, and a private regime resting on waivers is only as durable as the weakest state law it must survive.

The participation agreement thus does not close the legitimacy deficit; it relocates it. It converts a deficit of title into a thicket of contested contracts — extracted, under-inclusive of the governed, and exposed to state override — and a thicket of contested contracts is not the same thing as legitimate authority. It is the appearance of authority assembled from materials that cannot bear the weight, and the assembly holds only until tested.

7. The valid-business-purpose test as the amateurism-substitute

The test is being applied even as its foundation is contested, and the relationship between the two — confident application atop contested foundation — is the situation of the whole enterprise in miniature. The valid-business-purpose test functions, structurally, as the replacement for amateurism. Amateurism was the line that distinguished permitted from forbidden compensation and gave the Association’s restraints a defensible shape; the valid-business-purpose test is the new line, distinguishing the genuine endorsement from the disguised inducement, and giving the new body’s restraints their shape. And like amateurism, the test’s usefulness as a buffer depends entirely on whether it holds up under legal challenge, because a line that the courts will not enforce draws nothing.

The recent arbitration is best read as a first, narrow test of whether the line holds. An arbitrator affirmed the Commission’s rejection of deals between a school’s multimedia-rights partner and its football players, validating the body’s authority to treat that partner as an associated entity subject to its scrutiny and to reject the deals as lacking a valid business purpose. The Commission’s chief executive framed the ruling as proof that the new enforcement system can do what the settlement intended, insisting that the dispute was never about whether the athletes could be paid. Read against the legitimacy analysis, however, the victory is contingent in two ways that its framing obscures.

It is contingent, first, in its venue and reach. Counsel for the athletes characterized the result as one deal decided by one arbitrator, and located the real contest in federal court, where a motion argues that multimedia-rights partners are not associated entities at all and that the body has overreached. That motion was set for hearing in the federal district that approved the settlement, with the prospect that it could unravel a key element of the scheme by loosening the interpretation of the associated-entity category on which the body’s reach depends. The arbitral validation, in other words, secured one application of the test while the question of the test’s whole domain remained open before the court that retains authority over the settlement. The new body’s authority is ultimately contingent on that court rather than on any title of its own — which is itself a confession of the legitimacy deficit, since a body with genuine authority would not have its reach defined by a tribunal external to it.

It is contingent, second, in the asymmetry of finality the scheme builds in. An athlete who loses in arbitration may still petition a court to vacate the award, but faces steep odds in doing so, while the broader question of the scheme’s reach proceeds on a separate track in the settlement court. The enforcement apparatus can thus win the individual case under terms favorable to it and still lose the structural question that determines whether it may police the category of payments at issue at all. The Nebraska result validated the test’s application to one set of deals; it did not, and an arbitration could not, settle whether the category that makes the test bite will survive.

The deeper structural point is one of compression and exposure. Amateurism’s legal capital was drawn down over a generation of litigation, slowly, with the breadth of the Association’s membership lending its restraints the coloring of joint-venture governance throughout. The valid-business-purpose test is being tested over months rather than decades, and it is being tested without the breadth-based diffusion that protected amateurism, because the body promulgating it is not a thousand-member association but a narrow commission owned by the powerful conferences. The new line must establish its legal durability faster and from a weaker defensive position than the old line ever had to. Whether it can is the question the federal litigation will begin to answer, and the answer bears not only on this paper’s legitimacy analysis but on the antitrust exposure that Paper Six takes up, for the narrowness that strips the test of breadth-diffusion is the same narrowness that heightens the body’s antitrust risk.

8. The two routes that could close the deficit

The legitimacy deficit is not, in principle, permanent. Two routes could close it, and naming them clarifies why neither has been taken and what taking either would cost.

The first route is statute. A federal law authorizing the enforcement scheme and shielding it from challenge would supply the legal-rational authority that the body lacks by tradition, drawing legitimacy from the second well. This is the route the conferences have pursued and failed to secure; the legislative paralysis the volume has tracked from the introduction onward has left the statute unwritten, and so the well of law remains dry. The route is not foreclosed in principle — a future Congress could act — but it has been foreclosed in practice for as long as the effort has run, and nothing in the present alignment suggests an imminent change. The statute is the route the conferences want and cannot get.

The second route is a bargained counterparty. If the athletes — the actual governed — were represented by a body capable of agreeing on their behalf to be bound, the scheme could draw legitimacy from the third well, the consent of the governed, in its genuine form rather than the manufactured substitute. Collective bargaining with a players’ association would supply that consent directly, and it would carry a further structural advantage that Paper Six develops: a restraint agreed through bona fide bargaining with a recognized representative of the workers enjoys protection from antitrust challenge that a restraint imposed unilaterally does not. The bargained counterparty would close the legitimacy deficit and cover the antitrust exposure at a single stroke, supplying by consent what the failed statute would have supplied by law.

This second route is the one the conferences resist, and the structure of their resistance is revealing. To bargain with a representative of the athletes is to recognize the athletes as the kind of party with whom one bargains — as principals in their own right, with interests to be represented and consent to be obtained — and that recognition runs against the whole inheritance of the enterprise, in which the athletes were students to be governed rather than parties to be bargained with. The collapse of amateurism, traced in Paper One, removed the theory under which the athletes could be treated as non-parties, but it did not remove the conferences’ reluctance to draw the conclusion. They have lost the theory that justified governing the athletes without their consent and have not yet accepted the bargaining that would obtain it, and so they occupy the unstable middle: a private government over parties it will neither govern by inherited right nor treat as the counterparties whose consent would legitimate the governing. The manufactured consent of the participation agreement is the artifact of that middle position — an attempt to obtain the benefit of consent without conceding the status that genuine consent would require.

The deficit therefore persists not because it cannot be closed but because closing it requires either a statute the conferences cannot obtain or a recognition they will not extend. Between the route that is blocked and the route that is refused, the enforcement experiment continues on manufactured consent and competitive necessity, winning contingent victories and awaiting the litigation that will test whether a private government without title can hold the line it has drawn.

9. Conclusion

Enforcement of restraints over a contested activity requires legitimacy, and legitimacy is drawn from only three wells: the accretion of tradition, the authority of statute, and the consent of the governed. The College Sports Commission holds none in usable form. It has no tradition, having been created in 2025, and the early breakdown of compliance is exactly the behavior that the absence of traditional authority predicts. It has no statute, the federal accommodation having failed. And the consent it has assembled is the consent of schools rather than of the athletes its restraints actually bind, which is the consent of intermediaries and cannot legitimate restraints imposed on the governed. The participation agreement by which the body extracts a waiver of the right to challenge it is the visible substitute for the missing tradition and statute, and its existence is the proof of the deficit; a body with genuine title would not need it, and the manufactured consent it secures is extracted under duress, under-inclusive of the governed, and fragile against state law. The valid-business-purpose test that replaces amateurism must establish its legal durability faster and from a narrower, less defensible position than amateurism ever occupied, and the recent arbitration validated one application of it while leaving the question of its whole domain to a federal court whose authority over the matter is itself a confession of the body’s want of title. The deficit could be closed by statute, which is blocked, or by bargaining with a genuine representative of the athletes, which would supply consent and antitrust cover together but which the conferences refuse because it would require recognizing the athletes as the parties they are.

The refusal of the bargained route points directly to the next pressure dimension. The reason the conferences want a statute, and the reason a bargained counterparty would cover them, is that the restraints they enforce are exposed to antitrust challenge — and that exposure, far from being relieved by the move to a narrower enforcement body, is heightened by it. Paper Six takes up the antitrust paradox: why a smaller breakaway entity faces more legal risk than the broad Association it would replace, why the narrowness that strips the new body of legitimacy also strips it of legal cover, and why the only durable escapes from the exposure are the same two routes — statute or collective bargaining — that the legitimacy deficit also demands.

Notes

1. The three-source account of legitimate authority — tradition, law, and consent — follows the classical typology of legitimate domination, in which traditional, legal-rational, and (in the private sphere) consent-based authority are distinguished. The Association’s historical authority is read here as traditional; the sought-after statute would supply legal-rational authority; and a bargained counterparty would supply consent-based authority. The framing is applied rather than expounded, and the foundational source is listed below.
2. The “associated entity” category is the pivot of the enforcement scheme’s reach, because the valid-business-purpose test bites only on payments from entities the scheme treats as bound by its scrutiny. The pending federal challenge to the breadth of that category is therefore a challenge to the scheme’s domain, not merely to a single ruling, and its outcome conditions much of the antitrust analysis in Paper Six.
3. The valid-business-purpose test is treated here as the structural successor to amateurism: a line distinguishing permitted from forbidden compensation whose usefulness as a buffer depends on its legal durability. The parallel is analytical, not a claim that the test is amateurism under another name; the test permits compensation that amateurism forbade and draws its line elsewhere.
4. The participation agreement’s waiver provision is read as manufactured consent — a contractual substitute for the tradition and statute the body lacks. The reading does not impugn the agreement’s drafting; it observes that the need for such an instrument is itself diagnostic of the legitimacy deficit, and that the instrument’s three structural weaknesses (duress, under-inclusion of the governed, exposure to state law) leave the deficit relocated rather than closed.
5. The collective-bargaining route is developed in its antitrust dimension in Paper Six and in its end-state implications in Paper Nine. The present paper treats it only as the route that would supply genuine consent of the governed, and notes the conferences’ resistance to the recognition it would require, without resolving the employment-classification questions that the route entails.
6. The dates and figures in Sections 3 and 7 reflect the enforcement scheme’s first year of operation and the litigation pending as the volume was prepared; they are current to that moment and will have moved by the time they are read. The structural claim — that a body without title to bind cannot make its line hold by machinery alone — does not depend on the disposition of any particular case.

References

Anderson, E. (2017). Private government: How employers rule our lives (and why we don’t talk about it). Princeton University Press.

College Sports Commission wins key NIL arbitration in case brought by Nebraska football players. (2026, May 11). WSLS / Associated Press. https://www.wsls.com/sports/2026/05/11/college-sports-commission-wins-key-nil-arbitration-in-case-brought-by-nebraska-football-players/

College Sports Commission wins key NIL arbitration in case brought by Nebraska football players. (2026, May 12). U.S. News & World Report / Associated Press. https://www.usnews.com/news/sports/articles/2026-05-12/college-sports-commission-wins-key-nil-arbitration-in-case-brought-by-nebraska-football-players

CSC wins arbitration denying Nebraska NIL deals, but bigger fight looms in court. (2026, May). CBS Sports. https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/csc-wins-arbitration-nebraska-football-nil-deals/

Dennis, B., III. (2025, September 22). NIL Go platform report and enforcement updates. JD Supra. https://www.jdsupra.com/authors/bernard-dennis-iii

House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2025) (final approval of settlement).

Josh Lens brings legal insight to national symposium on NIL enforcement. (2025, November). University of Iowa, College of Health and Human Physiology. https://hshp.uiowa.edu/news/2025/11/josh-lens-brings-legal-insight-national-symposium-nil-enforcement

Lowe, M. (2025, November 26). CSC University Participation Agreement and the waiver of challenge rights. JD Supra. https://www.jdsupra.com/authors/michael-lowe/educational-institutions

Nebraska-Playfly arbitrator ruling raises stakes in House NIL fight. (2026, May). Sportico. https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2026/nebraska-football-playfly-nil-arbitration-1234892531/

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)

---