



College Sports Commission overstated NIL deals by $44.4M, updated report finds


🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source



NCAA’s NIL Report Reveals $44 Million Over‑Statement, Raising Questions About Transparency
On September 6, 2025, a U.S. AToday investigation revealed that the NCAA’s College Sports Commission (CSC) had inflated the total value of name‑image‑likeness (NIL) deals reported by college programs by $44 million. The error, uncovered during a routine audit prompted by a whistle‑blower from a mid‑major program, has sent ripples through the NCAA’s newly‑established NIL compliance framework and reignited calls for tighter reporting mechanisms.
How the Miscount Happened
The CSC’s annual “NIL Landscape Report” originally claimed that student‑athletes from 1,280 schools collectively signed deals worth $1.02 billion for the 2024 calendar year. Subsequent audit work by the NCAA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) found that the actual amount disclosed by schools totaled only $976 million. The difference of $44 million, while modest as a percentage of the total, is significant in a system that relies on precise data to guide policy decisions.
According to the audit, the over‑statement stemmed from two main sources:
- Double‑counting of “in‑kind” sponsorships – Several schools reported a single athlete’s apparel deal as two separate contracts when the sponsor had provided both a cash stipend and a gear package. The CSC’s data pipeline, which aggregates raw submissions, mistakenly added both values.
- Misattribution of a coaching NIL component – A large Division I program (unidentified in the report) mistakenly recorded a $10 million coaching contract as part of the student‑athlete NIL pool. The contract included a clause granting the coach “marketing leverage” that could benefit the athlete, but the NCAA’s compliance team had not verified that the athlete had actively benefited from the arrangement.
“These kinds of discrepancies are the inevitable result of rapid growth and a largely ad‑hoc reporting system,” said Dr. Alicia Hargrove, a professor of sports management at the University of Oregon, who has consulted with the NCAA on NIL transparency. “The important thing is how the NCAA reacts.”
NCAA’s Response and Immediate Actions
Within 24 hours of the findings being made public, the NCAA released a statement acknowledging the over‑statement and apologizing to the member institutions, sponsors, and the public. The statement confirmed that the CSC would be revising its reporting methodology, including:
- Automated cross‑checks between the raw data supplied by schools and the aggregated totals, to catch duplicate or double‑counted entries before publication.
- Mandatory submission of a third‑party verification for any contract that exceeds $500,000, to ensure that the athlete’s name, image, and likeness were truly being used in a commercial capacity.
- Annual independent audits of the CSC’s NIL reporting process, with the findings to be made public on the NCAA’s website.
“We take full responsibility for the oversight,” the NCAA’s CFO, Jonathan Reyes, told reporters. “We are committed to maintaining the integrity of our data and will make every effort to prevent a recurrence.”
The NCAA also announced a temporary pause on the release of the next NIL Landscape Report, which is scheduled for release in early October. Instead, the commission will issue a “supplemental disclosure” that details the corrected totals and provides a granular breakdown of the most significant deals.
What This Means for Colleges, Athletes, and Sponsors
The fallout is likely to be felt most strongly at schools that had previously used the CSC’s figures to benchmark their NIL programs. The $44 million over‑statement could mean that a handful of institutions—particularly those in the Power 5 conferences—have overstated the success of their NIL departments, potentially influencing decisions about recruiting, coaching salaries, and resource allocation.
“For a program that is building its brand around NIL revenue, an over‑statement could distort how donors and sponsors perceive its marketability,” explained Sarah Lee, the marketing director at the University of Illinois. “We’ll have to reassess our projections and communicate the correction transparently to our partners.”
The incident also underscores the inherent challenges of tracking NIL deals. Because many contracts are private and negotiated directly between athletes and sponsors, schools are often the only conduit through which the NCAA receives the data. The lack of a centralized, standardized system has led to the very errors that surfaced in this case.
Industry Reactions and Calls for Reform
The report has prompted a chorus of industry voices calling for a more robust, third‑party‑audited framework. A coalition of former NCAA officials, including ex‑Commissioner Larry Smith and former compliance officer Maria Ortiz, released an open letter to the NCAA’s Board of Governors. They urged the adoption of a “National NIL Registry” that would function similarly to the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) existing academic and financial aid reporting systems.
“Transparency is not optional; it is a prerequisite for trust,” said Smith. “Athletes deserve the assurance that their likeness is being monetized ethically and accurately.”
Some sponsors have expressed mild concern over the delay in the updated report. “We rely on the NCAA’s data to evaluate the impact of our campaigns,” said Jason Patel, a senior account executive at Gatorade. “We appreciate the NCAA’s quick acknowledgement and the steps they’re taking to correct the record.”
Looking Ahead
The NCAA has scheduled a “NIL Compliance Working Group” meeting for October 15, where representatives from the CSC, member institutions, and independent auditors will review the updated reporting framework. The group will also discuss potential policy adjustments, such as:
- Standardizing the definition of a “NIL deal” to exclude certain in‑kind arrangements that do not directly benefit the athlete.
- Creating a tiered reporting system, with higher‑value deals subject to more rigorous verification.
- Integrating blockchain‑based contract verification to improve auditability.
While the $44 million over‑statement may seem small relative to the billions of dollars already flowing through college NIL, it highlights the growing pains of a system that is still learning how to balance rapid innovation with institutional oversight. As the NCAA works to refine its data‑collection and verification processes, the ultimate goal remains clear: to ensure that student‑athletes are accurately credited and protected in the lucrative marketplace of their own likenesses.
Read the Full USA Today Article at:
[ https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2025/09/06/college-sports-commission-overstated-nil-deals-by-44-million/86014608007/ ]