Learfield says it won't guarantee NIL compensation as CSC issues warning about MMR deals

As we’ve seen with the University of Kentucky’s partnership with JMI Sports, multimedia rights partners (MMR) are now playing a big role in NIL negotiations, helping schools pad their budgets above revenue-sharing limits. In turn, the College Sports Commission (CSC) wants to make sure they’re playing by the rules.

On Friday, the CSC issued a reminder to schools about its rules regarding third-party deals, specifically those with multimedia rights and apparel partners. In it, the CSC said it had received word that some schools were offering players deals without “direct activations” with sponsors during the first week of the transfer portal being open. In other words, the deals don’t have NIL sponsors already tied to them, but rather promises of finding one through multimedia rights partners, which violates the rules. All third-party NIL deals with a value of $600 or more must be reported to NIL Go within five days of execution, or, in some cases, for enrolling high school athletes or incoming Division I players, 14 days.

According to Ross Dellenger, on the same day, Learfield, the largest multimedia rights-holder in college sports, sent an email to its school partners to clarify its role in NIL, stating that while it issues “interest” letters to athletes, it won’t guarantee NIL compensation. Learfield said that some of its letters may include a financial “target,” but that is not a guarantee, and it won’t advance NIL dollars before deals are executed.

Last week, Dellenger reported that LSU offered Cincinnati transfer quarterback Brendan Sorsby a $3.5 million deal through its multimedia rights partner, Playfly. Sorsby ended up committing to Texas Tech, but his offer from LSU has everyone talking about the role of MMRs in NIL.

“A contract between a student-athlete and an MMR partner (or anyone else) to pay the student-athlete for their NIL is an NIL contract and must be reported, even if the MMR partner plans to find other sponsors to pay for and activate the NIL,” the CSC’s guidance reads. “The label on the contract (e.g., ‘agency agreement,’ ‘services agreement’) does not change the analysis; if an entity is agreeing to pay a student-athlete for their NIL, the agreement must be reported to NIL Go within the reporting deadline.”

“Contracts in which MMR or other partners pay student-athletes for their NIL with no information about who will ultimately use that NIL will likely run afoul of this rule.”

On Friday, the CSC released guidance to schools expressing “concern” over some NIL guarantees made to prospects as the deals don’t include “direct activations” with sponsors, putting at risk a player’s eligibility if NIL Go denies these deals. pic.twitter.com/BoYOhutavC

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) January 12, 2026

Last week, Learfield announced a 15-year contract extension with Ohio State, a deal that seems very similar to the one between UK and JMI Sports. As part of it, Ohio State and Learfield are creating the “Buckeye Sports Group” for in-house NIL management like UK and JMI’s BBNIL Suite; however, one big difference between the two is that Ohio State is still allowing its outside collective, THE Foundation, to operate. As the CSC clamps down on MMR deals, that could be more important than ever.