College Sports Doesn’t Need More Laws—It Needs a Real Agent Regulator

COLUMBUS, OH - NOVEMBER 22: An Ohio State Buckeyes helmet sits on the sidelines during the game against the Rutgers Scarlet Knights and the Ohio State Buckeyes on November 22, 2025, at Ohio Stadium in Columbus, OH. (Photo by Ian Johnson/Icon Sportswire)

In previous articles, we've argued for the use of standardized contracts in college sports. And while a standardized contract will provide significant protection for athletes signing NIL and Rev-Share deals, more oversight of the entire landscape is desperately needed. To put it plainly, college sports needs an equalizer, aka, an agent regulator.

And to be clear: the FTC’s move discussed previously is significant because it reinforces that the federal government is paying attention. The FTC has explicitly stated it is seeking information to understand whether agents are complying with SPARTA and whether student-athletes are being protected. The FTC has also publicly warned those who represent college athletes to comply with SPARTA.

But federal oversight comes with a fundamental limitation: the federal government enforces broad consumer-protection rules; it does not live inside the sports ecosystem. That matters because NIL/Rev-Share disputes are rarely just “consumer fraud.” Most importantly, federal regulation of sports would be a bad idea. With the government’s susceptibility to lobbyists and political maneuvering (and all the collateral damage that comes with it), Washington shouldn’t be the referee for college athletics. It would amount to a failing product being managed by a failing system.

And as discussed previously, SPARTA is, by design, a baseline statute with a specific focus: unfair or deceptive practices, required disclosures, and notice. It doesn’t create a comprehensive professional licensing, compensation, and discipline system. And that’s what college sports needs, desperately.

The better model is to have college sports govern itself; have sports-industry regulation the way pro sports does it.

First, there needs to be a centralized certification process for all agents for college athletes. The NCAA or the CSC could operate that system, which would include a disciplinary process.

Right now, because of the flurry of lawsuits, with the NCAA being kicked around the courtroom, college sports feels like a free-for-all. It doesn’t feel like there’s a mom and dad enforcing the rules anymore. Now, it’s more like a drunk uncle watching the kids, passed out on the couch. But that needs to stop. Agents need to submit to a certification process, and there needs to be disciplinary action against predatory agents.

Second, there should be universal, standardized agreements in college sports. That would include NIL deals, Rev-Share agreements, and agency contracts. The contracts need to have transparent fee limits, and clear, standard terms. Currently, conferences use standard agreements, but there should be one agreement for all college athletes (differentiated for each sport).

That’s the model the NCAA (or an NCAA-aligned/College Sports Commission structure) is best positioned to implement because it can integrate:

1. Eligibility realities;

2. Compliance reporting; and

3. The economic structure of Rev-Share.

In other words, the real solution isn’t “more laws,” it’s the right regulator, using the right tools, with a modern understanding of the market.

The NIL/Rev-Share world is not going away. The money will keep growing, and representation will keep following it. The question is whether athletes will keep signing agreements where the fee structure is untethered from the true nature of the compensation, and the contract is written for the representative’s flexibility rather than the athlete’s protection.

My position is straightforward:

Rev-Share is salary-like. It should be priced like salary-like representation: 3%.

True NIL is commercial marketing (valid business purpose). It should be priced like commercial marketing (20%), but only when it is genuinely “true NIL” and doesn’t tie an athlete to a specific school.

The contract should be standard, transparent, and athlete-protective by default, not “negotiable” only for the small percentage of athletes who have sophisticated counsel.

Granted, to implement these changes, the NCAA will likely face lawsuits. That’s because athletes have grown accustomed to challenging the NCAA’s every move, and rightfully so. But these changes will easily hold up to legal scrutiny because they are changes that are for the best interest of the college athlete.