College football spent years fighting over how much schools could pay athletes. Now, just 16 months after the landmark House v. NCAA settlement was supposed to bring order to the chaos, the new financial rules are already facing a major test. The College Sports Commission (CSC) is investigating between five and 10 Power Four programs over potential revenue-sharing cap evasion and NIL violations. Apparently, writing the rules was the easy part.

No schools have been publicly identified, and none of the investigations has concluded. But investigators have reportedly visited campuses and conducted in-person interviews. “Multiple College Football Playoff contenders are under investigation for potential revenue-sharing and NIL violations, per 247Sports’ Chris Hummer and John Talty.”

Under the House settlement, schools can distribute roughly $21.5 million directly to athletes across all sports in 2026-27. Meanwhile, CBS Sports estimates that several football programs have rosters costing $40 million or more, with some approaching $50 million. That isn’t automatically illegal. Legitimate third-party NIL agreements allow athletes to earn additional compensation beyond their schools’ direct-payment limits.

The problem arises when outside businesses or boosters allegedly serve as middlemen to disguise payments that circumvent those restrictions. CBS Sports compared the situation to the NBA’s investigation involving the Los Angeles Clippers and Kawhi Leonard over potential salary-cap circumvention through third-party arrangements. Apparently, finding creative ways to move money isn’t exclusive to professional sports.

The financial stakes are substantial. Since launching NIL GO, the CSC has cleared $582.5 million in agreements while rejecting another $156.9 million. It has also relaxed certain checks, allowing deals between $600 and $15,000 to bypass fair-market-value review when an athlete’s associated agreements total no more than $50,000. Once that threshold is exceeded, the review requirements return.

Still, identifying questionable transactions and proving deliberate misconduct are different challenges. With millions riding on recruiting and roster retention, programs have plenty of reasons to challenge unfavorable decisions. And college football’s spending history explains why the CSC has such a difficult task ahead.

College Football’s $50M Spending Wars Expose the Biggest Problem With NCAA’s New Rules

College football’s spending battle started long before the latest investigations. In July 2021, athletes began earning money through name, image and likeness (NIL) deals. Wealthy boosters quickly formed collectives, turning endorsements into a lucrative way to attract and retain top talent.

After years of antitrust litigation, federal Judge Claudia Wilken approved the landmark House v. NCAA settlement on June 6, 2025. The nearly $2.8 billion agreement addressed past compensation restrictions and allowed participating schools to pay athletes directly beginning July 1. The initial annual revenue-sharing cap was approximately $20.5 million across all sports.

The College Sports Commission, led by former MLB executive Bryan Seeley, was established to oversee the new financial framework, with its NIL GO reporting platform launching on June 11, 2025. The goal was to distinguish legitimate commercial agreements from disguised recruiting payments.

By August 17, 2026, the spending race had reached another level. After interviewing more than 50 industry insiders, CBS Sports identified seven football programs in its highest roster-spending tier. LSU reportedly led the pack, with some estimates exceeding $50 million.

Ohio State, Miami, Oregon, Notre Dame, Texas and Texas A&M were also included, although some figures were disputed. Texas A&M, for instance, was estimated to be spending in the upper $30 million range, with incentives potentially pushing that figure above $40 million.

The warning signs weren’t entirely new. In a separate dispute, Nebraska unsuccessfully challenged the CSC’s rejection of multimillion-dollar NIL agreements involving 18 football players. The commission won that arbitration case, proving it could enforce at least some of its decisions.

Then, in an August 20 memo, the CSC confirmed it was examining potential cap evasion involving universities, athletes and outside parties. It also asked college officials to report questionable recruiting practices, agent conduct and business proposals. The commission was no longer just reviewing contracts. It was investigating whether programs were deliberately finding ways around the system.

Does CSC Have the Power to Enforce the Rules?

If the latest allegations are proven, the consequences could include financial penalties, recruiting restrictions, staff suspensions and athlete eligibility sanctions. Particularly serious violations could even lead to postseason bans, depending on the findings and applicable enforcement standards.

But there’s a catch. The CSC still hasn’t secured the participation agreement it wanted from all 68 Power Four schools. That agreement would have strengthened its authority to demand cooperation during investigations and limited institutions’ ability to challenge enforcement decisions in court.

According to CBS Sports, some schools have taken weeks or months to respond to information requests, while others have brought in outside lawyers. One Power Four GM offered a blunt assessment of the commission’s position: “They don’t have teeth to enforce it.”

That leaves the CSC with a fight on its hands. Supporting the rules is easy when your own program isn’t under scrutiny. But imposing a meaningful penalty against a playoff contender could trigger a legal battle, especially when millions of dollars and championship ambitions are at stake.

With the January transfer portal approaching, some schools want action before another recruiting cycle begins. A major penalty could make programs think twice before testing the limits of third-party NIL deals. But if proven violations go unpunished, there may be little incentive for anyone else to follow the restrictions.

Everyone wants fair rules until those rules get in the way. The CSC has its investigations, but turning allegations into enforceable penalties is another matter. College football finally has a spending framework. Whether its biggest programs can be held accountable under it is the real test.