Arbitrator upholds denial of NIL deals for 18 Nebraska football players

Field Level Media|published: Tue 12th May, 12:27 2026

Nov 4, 2024; Lincoln, Nebraska, USA; Nebraska Cornhuskers Athletic Director Troy Dannen watches warmups before the game against the UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros at Pinnacle Bank Arena. Mandatory Credit: Dylan Widger-Imagn Images

A third-party arbitrator upheld the decision of the College Sports Commission to reject NIL deals for 18 Nebraska football players.

The commission announced the decision in the name, image and likeness case on Monday. It was the first arbitration process to be completed about NIL deals since the commission was established following the landmark decision in the House v. NCAA settlement case.

The players appealed the rejection of their NIL agreements, which the commission denied because they did not serve a "valid business purpose." Under NIL rules, all deals must offer "fair-market value for a valid business purpose, rather than act as pay-for-play in disguise," Front Office Sports reported.

"This process shows the system is working as intended: a decision we made was challenged, and a neutral arbitrator assessed the facts to inform a final decision," said Bryan Seeley, the CEO of the College Sports Commission said in a statement. "We hope and expect that the student-athletes will submit new deals that comply with the rules, so we can promptly review them."

Nebraska athletic director Troy Dannen said in a statement that the players had the university's support.

"I am proud of our football student-athletes and how they represented themselves during this process and the patience they have shown," he said. "We continue to operate within the parameters of the House settlement and the CSC process, while monitoring changes in the collegiate landscape. We fully support all our student-athletes maximizing the value of their Name, Image and Likeness during their time at the University of Nebraska."

According to Front Office Sports, the commission rejected the NIL deals over concerns about the valid business purpose as well as the members' belief that they were considered to be "warehousing." That means entering an agreement where money is paid to the players in advance of future, non-specified deals.

The arbitrator did not, however, judge if the proposed deals were for a fair market value.

-Field Level Media

Latest